Current high bid for the 1 piece: 1.05 BTC https://scarce.city/auctions/casascius-1BTC-s2
Current high bid for the 0.5 piece: 0.55 BTC https://scarce.city/auctions/casascius-.5BTC-MS64

https://twitter.com/scarcedotcity/status/1505914778132398080

Both loaded, ICG-graded, the .5 @ MS64, the 1 @ MS68. Both in the US ready for easy delivery to US buyers.

Example of photos of the 1 BTC piece.




Examples of photos of the .5 BTC piece (more on the scarce city auction page):






Any queries welcome.

Have fun

Please note there were incorrect photos, incorrect information and incorrect links in the listings that have now been corrected. Thanks to minorjones for drawing my attention to that.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on the following way of conducting an auction on here in the next week or so for two brass Cas coins whereas, in parallel, I would also accepting bids for them on 4k.com where they've been "NFT'd" (the .5 is graded at MS64).

This is one of them:


Both coins are currently in secure storage in the US by 4k.com who have issued 'barer-tokens' (ERC1155 NFTs) for them. These auctions may therefore also be thought of as auctions for the physical-coin-backed NFTs.

However, I want the auction also to be open to the BTC-only community hence my proposal to have an auction thread here whereby anyone may place their bids here and 4k can be thought of merely as an escrow holder of the coins (with the 1% NFT redemption charge thought of as an escrow charge).

The idea is that I (or others) will replicate on the bct auction thread any bids that are made as 'offers' on 4k which may then be out-bid by people here not wanting to wrap their BTC as ETH tokens.

I propose in the event of there being two identical 'winning' bids, one here and one on 4k, that I will declare the one on 4k to have won because of the simplicity, low-risk and instant means by which wBTC may be exchanged for the NFT.

Where there is one clear winning bid on here (not matched on 4k) we can find a means to suit both parties (by use of escrow etc. at the buyer's expense) to transfer ownership and, if required, to take custody of the physical coin (to 'redeem' the NFT).

Does that sound to you like something that could work? Does it sound fair? Do you see potential pitfalls to this plan?

 

Hi all,

Scarce City is auctioning a brass Casascius coin of mine, 1 Bitcoin, Series 2 2013, loaded - good condition.

For pics and further details, see the auction link from which bids may also be placed.

Thank you for your interest  

[*** AUCTION ENDED ***]

*** AUCTION ENDED ***
Casascius coin, 1 Bitcoin, loaded (brass, Series 2 2013)

(please use the other thread for queries, clarifications etc.)

Clearly this ungraded coin is far from being in mint condition, yet these magnified photos show the blemishes as much more prominent than when holding the coin in person. In your hand, you get a real sense not only of how precious bitcoins themselves are (you're holding 1 / 21 millionth of all that will ever exist) but also how few of these original physical coins were ever minted. See this recent auction where another of these coins I originally purchased directly from Mike Caldwell was sold (by https://twitter.com/bitgeiniog).

• Starting bid: 1.05 BTC.
  
  
• Minimum increments: 0.01BTC
  
  
• End date and time: Saturday 2021-11-27 at 23:00 UTC - see countdown clock below.
  
  
• Sniping: Any bid made within the last 10 minutes of the auction will restart a 10 minute clock for each bid thereafter (countdown clock to be ignored in the event of sniping*).
  
  
• Shipping: Not included. UK buyer: collection in person recommended from a secure facility. Overseas buyer: coin will be professionally packaged and dispatched by bullion dealers, with courier insurance offered for additional cost. Estimated shipping costs: Europe: BTC0.0005, International: BTC0.001.
  
  
• Custody: Coin is in the custody of https://twitter.com/bitgeiniog who will meet winner at secure facility or supervise its shipping by the bullion dealers.
  
  
• Payment: Bitcoin (BTC) to be sent to bc1quv0qwqjzc69vpqdshpz3djyrl8d6347ycx52rn (or to escrow, to be agreed with fees paid by buyer)
  
  
• Payment window: The winning bidder has 24 hours to pay their final bid (to me or, if agreed, to escrow) otherwise, at my discretion, the next highest bidder may be notified and will have a chance to pay their high bid.
  

For anyone not familiar with what this is, from the Encyclopedia of Physical Bitcoins and Crypto-Currencies:



Auction ends in*:
COUNTDOWN CLOCK REMOVED BECAUSE IT IS PLAYING UP. AUCTION ENDS ON THE HOUR.

Note that the countdown clock applies only in the absence of sniping.*

* In the event of sniping, the eligibility of bids will be determined retrospectively in accordance with the timestamp of bids posted, the winner being the highest bid received in accordance with the sniping rule above.

Please note this thread is for bids only. If you have any queries, comments or anything other than bids, please use the other thread.

[Please note this is not the auction thread.]

Please note this is not the auction thread.
To see and to make bids, see the LIVE AUCTION THREAD.
This thread is for queries, clarifications and comments i.e. anything and everything that does not belong in the auction thread which I request be used for bids only.

Casascius coin, 1 Bitcoin, loaded (brass, Series 2 2013)

• Photos: See live aution thread for photos.
  
  
• Starting bid: 1.05 BTC.
  
  
• Minimum increments: 0.01BTC
  
  
• End date and time: Saturday 2021-11-27 at 23:00 UTC
  
  
• Sniping: Any bid made within the last 10 minutes of the auction will restart a 10 minute clock for each bid thereafter*.
  
  
• Shipping: Not included. UK buyer: collection in person recommended from a secure facility. Overseas buyer: coin will be professionally packaged and dispatched by bullion dealers, with courier insurance offered for additional cost. Estimated shipping costs: Europe: BTC0.0005, International: BTC0.001.
  
  
• Custody: Coin is in the custody of https://twitter.com/bitgeiniog who will meet winner at secure facility or supervise its shipping by the bullion dealers.
  
  
• Payment:See live aution thread for payment address
  
  
  
• Payment window: The winning bidder has 24 hours to pay their final bid (to me or, if agreed, to escrow) otherwise, at my discretion, the next highest bidder may be notified and will have a chance to pay their high bid.
  

* In the event of sniping, the eligibility of bids will be determined retrospectively in accordance with the timestamp of bids posted, the winner being the highest bid received in accordance with the sniping rule above.

Again, please note, this is not the auction. Bids placed in this thread will not count.
To participate, place bids in the live aution thread.

Hi folks,

Two things: First to let potentially interested folks know that coin is being auctioned by my brother on scarce.city. Edit: Auction  link: https://scarce.city/auctions/casascius-1btc-coin

Second is a question he has to anyone who may have cleaned these up in the past - would using Brasso or something (on the non-sticker side) help bring back the shine and make it look more attractive? I seem to recollect the blemish in the top of the B was there since I originally bought it from Mike but the scuffs and scratches probably originate from when I was carrying them round in my pocket trying to see if I could buy lunch in the caffe with them






Incidentally, this is one of the same coins I was talking about where I gave more background on them in this thread back in December. Then with the rapid rise, those who had been thinking of selling just held on tight - until now... There are two silver tens still to be sold - in scarce.city, here or elsewhere, depending on how this first experiment goes.

...and I've got heaps of peeled 1s and .5s if anyone would like to make an offer on some of those

I gave heaps of Casascius One-bitcoin physical coins away back in the day and also a small no. of 'silver tens'. Now with the new ATHs, in larger numbers than ever before, friends are coming back to me asking for help in selling* part of their Bitcoin, and this time, including one of the silver tens. To-date over the years, having not had much joy in selling the physical coins, I have helped my friends peel them and securely move the various coins from them to hardware wallets then to exchange (which was also the fate of mine when I lived off my bitcoin until I ran out in 2014/15!)

But now, having heard rumours of prices that may be obtained for them, here's me logging back into an account I thought I'd erased in order to see whether there is genuine interest.

The loaded Casascius Silver 10 Bitcoin piece with Gold ₿ is going to be auctioned in a 10 day auction after the new year and in the meantime, getting it graded for physical condition as well as good photos and giving time to think of ways of reaching potential buyers so we've got as best chance at the auction being a true price discovery. Currently, the idea is to have a starting price of 10.05 btc and to have a 12.5 btc reserve, below which the seller will have the option to decline.

In the event that it doesn't reach the reserve and the owner declines the highest below-reserve bid, her plan is to peel it in order to frame and keep the physical coin herself.

Regarding the Casascius brass 1s, I know of four coins straight that my friends would sell and likely more if the price was right so I will start by auctioning the first of those in the next days.

As for background, these were all bought by me directly from Mike Caldwell in the few months after I joined this forum (the date of which you can check out).

It's strange to be posting here again after so many years so greetings to anyone who remembers me from back then  

*as an aside, the experiment - which was part of the purpose of giving so many away - was to see if being given some, owning some, would pique their interest such that people decided to learn about this amazing technology / phenomenon and discover its wonders as I had. The outcome of the experiment is that hardly anyone did to-date. They know as little about it now as they did then and are only interested in getting some money for it. That aspect is slightly disappointing but not that I gave them away because I know had I not given them away, I would likely have spent them myself anyway so at least it is my friends that are benefiting from the btc, not whoever the strangers are who may be currently selling or hodling those I sold

Edit 2: Largely re-written to reflect where we've got to after some very useful feedback below and in PMs.

Preamble you can skip if you want: I'm as guilty as many on both sides of snarky, smart-arse comments but tonight I just spent a very enjoyable hour (doing a face-to-face trade) with two who hold different opinions than me. I think we all learned something and I'm confident we all had more respect for the legitimacy of holding a different view from ourselves.

My primary point is that a technical expertise does not make one an economics expert and therefore there's a danger in trusting the technical experts to make the decisions that risk what has proven to work thus far i.e. enough space to accommodate almost all transactions.

I wanted, since visiting Sudan in the mid nineties, a currency that would protect people in countries from government actions that truly screw them over such as the monthly doubling the money supply to pay the army (that doubled the price of everything on the day the army was paid).
I had figured out in the years after that public key cryptography might be the basis of an independent currency and was hoping someone smarter than me might figure it out. But even though I was kinda expecting it I was still blown away by the elegance of Satoshi's solution.

One of the exciting things was that the same currency served the needs of so many different groups of people including: the Austrians / gold-bug types, libertarians / ancaps and others including me who see value in an incorruptible currency, people screwed by high remittance fees or by gov't restrictions of internal or international currency transfer, the unbanked who are cut off from financial services most here take for granted, its use for contracts such as with Factom - even those, such as me - who liked to give small amounts away* or raise intrigue with shopkeepers, restaurant owners by offering physical (or later wallet app) bitcoins for my meal etc. etc. The fact that there were, in addition, so many use cases that we could not even imagine what they might be was just mind-blowing for me.

The failure to do something about the transaction bottleneck before it started to nudge fees up and (and/or cause delays orders of magnitude higher than before) is and will continue to have an impact. This isn't about laying blame today. I think it's fair to say all stakeholders (in the wider use of the term) including developers, miners, other users and moderators jointly - if not equally - have to-date failed to make a change a user can use today.
I am looking forward to seeing 2nd layer off-chain solutions bringing all kinds of new use cases. I also mourn the loss of the use of the blockchain for the other use cases as their viability is eroded to nothing by fees and delays.

As I see it, those whose judgement on Bitcoin's future has apparently earned the respect of the majority on this sub due to their technical merit, have a plan that accepts the loss of the multitude of use cases (on-chain) as a price worth paying to have Bitcoin be as strong as possible for the three use cases they deem worthy: censorship-resistant-currency, store-of-value, settlement-layer.

If this argument continues to prevent the increase of the block-size limit, as much as I'd like to see them proven wrong, I genuinely hope that Bitcoin will continue to be of value to enough for merely those three use cases to survive and to thrive. The fact is we don't know. Nobody can know. The combination of use cases and unlimited potential use cases was what got us to where we are today. How long can we chip away at the other use cases and still have something that holds value? Maybe indefinitely? It depends entirely on the faith and the preparedness of those who stay in to pull us out of whatever next big dip is. It is still a significantly inflationary currency and the higher up the price goes, with more coming on board at higher prices, the further it has to fall. And we ought not forget it is not the only player in the crypto space.

From what I understand of 2nd layer channels, they're not going to serve the Sudanese and those in the many countries where the spread of mobile telephony means they could potentially exchange what for us are small amounts to protect themselves. My hope is that Bitcoin can still do this - as I believe was the vision of Satoshi and as I understand some with a much better technical understanding than me (GA, for one) believe is still possible.

But if it's not Bitcoin, I'm kinda hoping for the sake of what it once was that it survives and continues to reward those who believed in it but more importantly, if it's not Bitcoin, I'm really hoping another currency will take up the baton for those who most need use of this technology - and if that is at the cost of Bitcoin falling by the wayside, so be it. We - jointly, as a whole community - will only have ourselves to blame.

*Those many, many 25mBTC paper wallets I gave away may, unless their owners figure it out soon, be sums that are forever not be economically viable to move.

 Is there interest from any reputable traders, maybe someone who remembers me from here from back in the day?

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/digitale-waehrung-bitcoin-kollektiv-geschuerft-1.1863332

BitPay rate: <£400
BitBargain rate: >£600

I'm not blaming BitPay - with such massive divergence between the exchanges I don't envy anyone trying to come to a fair rate but their claim 'Buyers will always get a better value by spending their bitcoins at a BitPay merchant than by selling them on an exchange. ' is far from being the case right now.

Just on the off chance, if any Irish bitcoiners get approached with a 25btc piece in the next few days there's a fair chance it was mine and I'd be interested to know and prepared to talk about a generous award for its return.  However it should be noted this is not stolen but lost so it should not be assumed its holder did anything dishonest.  I was careless.

It was lost today between 2pm and 6pm somewhere between Quay Coop on Sullivan's Quay and Union Quay.

I'm disappointed but surprisingly OK about it.  However, obviously would be EXTREMELY grateful of its return

[The Hot Potato Pound (HPP)]

I am doubtful, given the number and aptitude of minds working on the various pieces required for a p2p exchange at the moment, that there is anything here that has not already been thought of but just in case... (btw. mods, feel free to move to an appropriate subforum - I didn't think 'just an idea' would fit under 'Projects').

In Brief

The Hot Potato Pound (HPP) is called 'Hot Potato' because whilst the plus is that it is very cheap and easy to use to transact a user either needs to pass it on quickly or redeem it as not to lose too much value.  It's 'Pound' because it works for me as a Brit though the same protocol could be used -  and may well end up being used first - for other currencies such as USD or EUR.

A decentralised p2p coloured coin issuing/redeeming idea that works on the principle of an issuer's bitcoin deposit (held in escrow by a Open Transactions multi-signature system as described elsewhere) warrantying redemption.  The incentive for issuers to redeem on demand is destruction of their bitcoin deposit upon proof of failure to redeem.  This could not only solve the trust-in-issuer problem of coloured coins but give us an instrument that has the potential to be in competition with on-line credit card or contactless technology (and M Pesa etc) for cheap, secure, easy transactions in fiat currencies.  I can see it working either as the primary means, or in a 'basket' of coloured coins to be used in Open Transactions.

The issuers/redeemers make money because the decaying coin values are worth less on redemption, dependent on duration, than at issue, the difference being the issuer's (minus a redeemer's fee).  The rate of decay and the amount of deposit representing each Hot Potato Pound is in flux, determined by supply and demand:  The rate of decay is determined by issuers (needs to be sufficient to be worthwhile participating) whilst the total deposit ('reserve'/'backing') is determined by HPP holders (needs to be enough for them to be confident in redemption).

Preamble

It seems like an age since I thoroughly read and participated in fellowtraveler's The Holy Grail thread on a p2p exchange idea (and others linked from there) where ft introduces the idea of combining Open Transactions and Bitmessage for the orderbook and exchange side of things.  But what has been grabbing my attention since is the trust issue in relation to coloured coins.

...The weakest link seems to me to be fiat represented by colored coin.

...You are correct that a colored coin issuer is the "weakest link." You do have to trust that the colored coin issuer will ultimately redeem those colored coins back for GBP again.

However…

...

... if the issuer issues the currency first as colored coins, then the issuer cannot be held liable for those coins later being traded on various servers by various users. The issuer becomes totally divorced from the transaction servers. Just the same as the Federal Reserve being completely innocent of whatever their dollars are used for, once those dollars enter circulation beyond their reach.

--- Of course, the issuer still needs to provide bank wires in/out as a redemption of last resort, and he will need to follow KYC / AML for those wires, but as long as he does, most people will be able to get in/out of the system by buying/selling the colored coins from each other instead of having to go directly through the issuer. This is very powerful! Therefore I believe that colored coins are very important. Kudos to J.R. Willett!

--- This allows the issuer to operate legally, without any involvement in the operations of the servers themselves.

--- After that, I suggest using OT's basket currencies to distribute the risk of a single currency across multiple issuers, using jurisdictional arbitrage. For example, if there are 20 issuers in various jurisdictions who issue a GBP-based currency, we can combine those on OT into a single basket, such that no one is risking all their money with a single issuer.

--- I'm sure the recent victims of the Liberty Reserve heist, who just had all their money stolen, wish they had considered such possibilities, as I have been for the past few years.

As I mentioned above a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then and these issues may already have been resolved but if not I think I have a means of solving it.  There will be flaws and one or more may be insurmountable but even if useless in and of itself an element of it might be useful for someone else's ideas.  So feel free to respond as critically as you like

I think the best way of explaining it is to illustrate how I envision it working:

In Practice

Let's say I start this thing, become the first Issuer/Redeemer (call me I/D1) and decide to deposit 100 bitcoins which I do by locking it into an Open Transactions escrow system as described in the aforementioned thread.  I am going to secretly set a minimum decay percentage acceptable to me personally but will publicly offer the first customer an extreme 10% per week decay (just to illustrate the example).  My first customer comes along with £500.  The customer sets up his HPP wallet and sees what £500 worth of HPP would be backed by.  He sees 100 bitcoin, is satisfied and sets on the wallet his own minimum deposit he'd be happy with to 'back' his HPPs (or equivalent £ value which would update with exchange rates*).  I accept the £500 cash and ensure an appropriate 'receipt' is created (steps taken with timestamped proof of handover of cash or of bank transfer etc.).   I issue an HPP coloured bitcoin worth £500 at time of issue.  The whole of my 100 bitcoins are 'locked in' at this stage against a mere £500.  However I have £500 cash to do as I wish with providing I remember always to have access to £500 at any time to redeem to anyone who should demand it on risk of my bitcoin being destroyed.  The ratio agreed at the time of this deal  (10:1) becomes the Current Valid Deposit Ratio (CVDR).

Someone else who would like some HPP decides to get involved when she mentions it to a friend who has Bitcoin and likes the idea - let's call her I/D2.  I/D2 and her customer only want to dip in their toes so even though the customer only wants £10's worth the issuer simply does not want to tie up 2 whole bitcoins.  Her customer would be more than happy with 1 bitcoin backing her £10 (and also sets her wallet minimum ratio to 2:1**).  The system checks that the proposed 5:1 ratio for this deal is not below any existing minimums set by wallets containing HPP.  In this instance, given there has only been the one other transaction and that the first customer's minimum ratio is also lower than that proposed by this deal, upon this transaction being made the Current Valid Deposit Ratio is lowered to 5:1.  As a consequence of the new CVDR if we go look at I/D1s position again we'll see now that the £500 HPP is now backed by 50 bitcoins so the Open Transactions escrow system releases half the bitcoin deposit and makes it available to be used by I/D1 against more HPP issuing.  In the meantime I/D2's customer is also OK with a decay of 10%/week so the deal goes ahead.

Let's say it's a week since the first deal and the original HPP have ended up in one person's wallet who looking at it sees it is now only worth £450 decides to sell or redeem it.  I'm guessing an open market would establish itself but let's say rather than selling it on he goes to redeem it.  He finds lets say I/D3.  I/D3 who has Bitcoin deposited but has not as of yet issued any HHP.  He has however decided to offer pounds of his own so he can offer a redeeming service so he gives the £450 to his client who returns the HPP (with all proofs of the transaction taken care of).  Having no immediate customers lined up for the HPP he 'redeems' it with the system which involves I/R1 sending him his £450 + redeemers fee (I have not thought how it would be determined nor of the system of trust involved in 'clearance' between I/Ds).

It is now a week since the second deal and somebody has a decayed £9 worth of HPP.  On that day a new HPP issuing deal is going down with a customer who will only go for it if the decay rate is halved.  As it happens the minimums of all the I/Ds who have issued HPPs is less than or equal to half the going rate so from this day forward the new customer's HPP along with all those of all other HPP users will halve (The holder of the £9 will now lose 'only' 5% in the next week).

In the event that we got to a situation where prospective customers were not buying because the amount backed becomes too low (e.g. a halving of GBP/BTC) or the decay rate too high - or the converse where the CVDR or decay rate are insufficient for one or more I/Ds there needs to be a way of 'forcing' minimums/maximums that are holding up everyone else either to accept new rates within a given time or within that time to redeem one's position.  For instance if a customer has insisted on a ratio which at the time was fine but given most people accept much lower is limiting the HPP available to be issued the HPP holder would be given the option of redeeming their HPP or accepting the new rate.  Rather than this being done by committee the idea is that the rules are built into the protocol.  Likewise if as in the example above another halving of GBP/BTC occurred I/Ds would have the option of topping up their bitcoin to cover their positions, of reducing their positions within the network of I/Ds by passing it on to someone else or by redeeming enough to reduce the ratio.

I have many more examples in my head that I think would work and there will be many more others can think of, some of which may not work at all!  So rather than me going on and on about it I think I have given enough here for many of you to get the gist of it.  I'd be very grateful of any and all feedback

Tf

* assuming a going rate of £50/bitcoin a £500 HPP backed by 100 bitcoins would be the equivalent of .2 bitcoins/per pound (£10) giving us a 10:1 ratio of backing:HPP

** Just to clarify, for this current deal, given the issuer is happy to tie up 1 bitcoin to warranty him £10 (a 5:1 ratio) he accepts this.  However he would be happy to accept a minimum of 2:1 and sets his wallet accordingly.

Does anybody know a journalist who might be interested in looking into this? If you do or know someone you think might know someone please forward this or share accordingly. I've just been doing some preliminary searching into ICSPA - the International Cyber Security Protection Alliance and am frankly taken aback by what I've found. I think it needs someone with investigative resources/criteria who will have their questions taken seriously and someone who also has the means of selling the story - if there is indeed a story - to ensure word gets out on this.

I know ex-forces guys sometimes struggle with what to do with their lives once they leave but this is a cracker! An ex-RAFfie with a lot of connections and too much time on his hands appears to have woken up one morning in 2011 and thought "I know what, I'll set up an organisation to internationally co-ordinate policy-making and policing of anything internet-related worldwide. We'll get a load of corporate money together and use our contacts to get some political credibility then become the go-to people for more powerful governments and police authorities to get them to implement what we want whilst using the same political clout to bully governments in developing nations to comply, thus bringing the whole of the internet under our control. In the meantime by portraying the internet as a scary place full of nasty people and organisations we'll easily push ourselves as being the saviour of the innocent internet user, and by giving ourselves an authoritative sounding title governments, businesses and the people will just believe we are actually a legitimate organisation accountable to... well, actually it doesn't matter who people think we're accountable to as long as they don't realise it is in fact nobody! Excellent, now where did I put David Blunkett's number?!"

I kid you not! Two years later ICSPA runs out of this office in Chesham, Bucks; they have a video from David Cameron saying why he supports the organisation, they appear to have both Europol and City of London Police in their pockets, they're establishing a foot-hold in Latin America and they're given two pages of the official G8 magazine to lobby participating delegates as to why Bitcoin and all new money-transmitting technologies should be banned (using the usual 3-excuse-rhetoric of child porn, terrorism and money laundering), with the exception of the 'trustworthy' existing credit card and banking names and technologies thus keeping all internet-related financial transactions in the hands of the existing oligopolies.

What I want to know is who do they think they are that they can become judge and jury of the pros and cons of innovative technologies and also enforcement co-ordinator of its own verdict? How did such a policy come about? In their big Glen Eagles conference last year? Where is the agenda? Who is driving it? How much influence do they actually have? How on earth does somebody get to wield such power without ever having to supply a service to a customer or canvas for a vote?!

I'm struggling to figure out if this is a couple of people, mainly the ex-RAFfie nobody blokie (whose name is John Lyons) and Blunkett, just having a go and seeing how far they can push this thing or if it really is a scary beast that's like a cross between the sinister organisations of Ayn Rand and George Orwell's dystopias. Either way I think people ought to know. I think it's time to put ICSPA under the spotlight and see what there is to be seen.

     

http://www.newsdeskmedia.com/files/G8-UK-2013.pdf (page 60)

https://www.icspa.org/uploads/media/John_Lyons_-_Chief_Exec_speech_launching_the_ICSPA_in_London__July_5th__2011.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzSHlmLX8nY

Check out "We've reached out to governments across the globe on your behalf".  Excuse me.. on whose authority are you claiming to be doing anything on my behalf?!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=04935HdkvoA

The volume of mtgox is below 60% of total USD volume traded on the exchanges listed at bitcoincharts.com  in the last 24 hours whilst bitstampUSD is at 30% How cool is that?!  

The bid prices are closer than they've been in recent weeks too.

I know we're talking about low volumes but not as low as it may seem for those used to just going by gox volumes as an indication.  Ideally I'd like an indication of OTC and off-list exchanges such as Trade Hill too but I'm getting an impression our vulnerability to mtgox is finally beginning to diminish



Edit: to replace my vol & bidprice image with one that has same data but is labelled

I just warned my siblings who were considering using LocalBitcoins.com to buy at today's bargain-basement prices that the prices offered by the sellers (especially GBP) are totally off kilter.  The reason being most traders use a calculation for their dynamic pricing that includes the mtgox price.

I'm finding the most reliable way of getting an idea of bitcoin valued in usd now is to use BitPay's listed prices (or formula).*

So what I'm recommending my siblings do (and will offer you folks too) if intending to buy on LocalBitcoins whilst MtGox is broken is to click on whatever you need to to get a phone number then make contact with the seller to ask if they would set their price manually to reflect (plus whatever commission they normally would add) the BitPay price.  You have the justification if you wanted to make a purchase from the many services offering BitPay as a payment option that is the calculation that would be used to calculate your bill in bitcoins.

So don't lose out

* I actually like the principle behind BitPay's means of calculating price and would like to see it more widely used.  I have a variation on it that uses the top four USD exchanges by volume as listed on BitcoinCharts.org/markets that uses the average of the pair of Asks that are closest together.

I think it's safe to say the arrival of cryptocurrency has been well and truly announced.  The ringing of the announcer's bell is reverberating around the world and as a consequence the odds are a lot higher than they were a month ago that those who are in most desperate need of what Bitcoin offers in terms of protection against tyrannical manipulative regimes will have heard of it by now.

This is one of the reasons I am not too concerned about the feedback loop that seems to be going on with the continued boom resulting in more news coverage resulting in more interest resulting in the continued boom!  Even if it does result (whether tomorrow, in a week, a month or even in a year's time) in a pretty substantial fall in price relative to fiat I would consider that a price worth paying for the news saturation we have seen in the last week or two.  The likelihood is most people know somebody who knows somebody who has heard of Bitcoin and that may just be enough for it to emerge as a substantive tool in protecting those for whom access to it would make the biggest difference in their lives.

The other advantage of it having happened so fast - especially if it continues on this trajectory for a month or two longer - is that governments simply don't act that fast other than when it comes to war.  No government will want to be seen to be the first to take draconian measures - which could as many point out also backfire - which means they need even more time to prepare if they've got to negotiate with other world powers to make a concerted effort to 'do something'!

My guess is by the time they got around to that it will be too late in that there will be too many examples available to show how Bitcoin is playing a critical role in improving the lives of the most oppressed.  Remember also the US government not only gave up on trying to control cryptographic protocols but also released Tor into the wild knowing it would be used for nefarious purposes but accepting that as the cost of the technology being available to those fighting tyrannical regimes.

I think in many more ways then one things are looking up

I'm referring to the two pronged attack on Bitcoin last night/this morning by the FT and the BBC in their Financial News.

So far for the large part the City ignored Bitcoin as per Ghandi's quote so it is clear to me we are moving forward if they have got to the next stage, that of laughing at us This of course only leaves 'then they fight you' and 'then you win'

I will admit after the New Yorker piece the other day I would have thought the FT would have been a bit less one-sided but it is clear it is designed as a deliberate hit piece.

I saw the BBC one last night and will draw attention to a nail-on-the-head comment by youtube user 'droow' who commented: 'That woman is Angela Knight, the old boss of the British Banking Association. No wonder she doesn't want it to work. She's as much of a crook as the rest of them. She was the one who was wheeled out on the news to defend the ridiculous bankers bonuses.
"no assetts behind it" !!!! What you mean like the banks that leveraged 30x their deposits??'

So why did they do it?  

Let's get the conspiracy theory out of the way first:  They're doing it to trigger a sharp downturn so that they can get in!  I wouldn't entirely rule it out but I'd say probably not.

More likely I think is they don't like it, see it as a threat but also love the graph they can recognise from their economics studies of bubbles and naiively believe if they slap it down now they will set the scene for the 'one scandal' that apparently Bitcon is away from 'collapsing entirely'.

I am of the opinion both these pieces are a good thing for Bitcoin right now for two reasons:

i) It's a bit of a tall order but it would be nice if reverberations of bubble warnings got to the ears and got those who are about to chuck large lumps of money without thinking the risks through enough may not.  I would rather they didn't or only put a smaller amount in because it is these types who are most likely to lose their nerve when in disbelief they see the 'ever up' chart go downwards and panic sell thus exacerbating the plummet.  If fewer of these do it the buying frenzy may slow down somewhat which gives more opportunity for weak hands to get out with less damage and for a wider base of newcomers coming in at a better rate.

ii) The other thing I'm delighted about is those most likely to listen to the banksters are other banksters and if they laugh and stay away for the time being it will also prolong the opportunity for more of the likes of you and me to get on board before the big money hits and drives up the price.  Also I really like the idea of the poetic justice were a significant proportion of the population to get on board before them because the benefit of the increase in value through their money would somewhat offset the value they sucked out of the economy with their antics in recent years with fiat!

Just some thoughts

Cross posting this from where I originally put it on the Wall Observer channel er.. I mean, thread

Just so you know London's Biggest Conversation talk radio channel http://www.lbc.co.uk/ are currently doing a piece on Bitcoin.  Impressive so far...

Update:  It was a pretty good hour all in all which covered Bitcoin, baldness and bands we wish we would have seen live!
The host had learned about it from listening to Max Keiser and from tomorrow's headlines (hint hint!) and seemed excited about its revolutionary potential along with online petitions etc. 'tomorrow's means of street protest' which I thought was quite a nice analogy.

Caller 1 was a restauranteur who said it was rubbish because it wasn't backed by anything (to which the host responded neither is the pound) and that its value would disappear as soon as it was out of fashion and that any idiot who tried to pay for their meal at his place would be... anyhow, if someone gave him one bitcoin how would he pay their change?  In pounds?  The host was also under the impression a Bitcoin was 'about the size of a two pence piece'.

Caller 2 was me who tried to keep talking to get as much in as I could first explaining physical bitcoins was what he was talking about was just one minor means of storing bitcoins, other options being wallets on pcs, on smartphones, on a printed piece of paper and as a brain wallet which could be carried anywhere in the world.  Also (although I don't recollect using any full stops!)  I was talking about it being used as a fast cheap international wire equivlent or its use to buy things mainly on-line and as in the case of the restauranteur paying with smartphone with QR code holding address and value and tip being added and BitPay meaning he could offer the service to customers without being exposed to Bitcoin.  I was asked whether it is a 'legitimate currency' given so few places accept it.  I said it was early days that if you wanted to find a restaurant to pay in Bitcoin you might need to research on the internet first but I also mentioned Bitcoin street in Berlin and the new Jeep dealership in the US accepting Bitcoin.  I finished by talking about the hit piece on FT and me being OK with Banksters being stuck in their old paradigms because if they're late to the game all those who bought before them will benefit so the bankers will end up paying something back for the value they destroyed by their antics with fiat!

Caller 3 was a miner who talked well about distributed network providing security, confirming transactions and receiving new coin as reward.

Caller 4 was someone who had looked into it and was puzzled if the inventors were so anti normal money why were they making a fortune in normal money by exchanging their bitcoin for them?!  The host was unable to answer so brought on...

Caller 5 who has been into Bitcoin since 2010 and explained about the origins but that mining was now done by a community.  However caller 4 still did not understand why people if they were so into bitcoin would sell it for normal money and was suspicious of it still, which is fair enough.  Caller 5 also mentioned the experimental nature of it which the host repeated as a word of warning to close.

Very impressed with the how the whole thing went and I will admit to being quite pleased by my own bit too

PS mods, if this should be somewhere else please tell.  I thought under 'press' but logically to me press comes under media  but there's no category.  Anyway, let me know and I'll move it or feel free...

Please someone just tell me I'm getting paranoid, turning into a conspiracy theorist by seeing this ridiculous TruthBeTold video!



By featuring this is Google trying to promote stuff that attempts to tarnish Bitcoin or is it less nefarious than I am imagining?

Another from TruthBeTold, his latest, is even worse in regurgitating an ancient (in Bitcoin terms) scam blog from June 2011 and selling it as news.

In replying helpfully to responses from open inquisitive commenters on the featured video I got banned, you, first youtube channel I've been banned from in all the comments I've made since 2007 is run by a guy who has the gall to call his channel 'TruthBeTold'.

Were I not banned I would suggest in response to the scam one that he rename his channel 'LieBeRepeated'!