Well what if his landlord accepts the btc directly and also never reports his income. The transaction would never be recorded. (Of course the same with case ) Theres a reason those chinese restaurants like cash (and its not just because of the lack of credit card fees).

Well something I thought about was what if you put in very large buy or sell orders at a certain point. It might make people feel like the price will rise (if you do a buy order) and you can sell for the higher level. If it actually gets too close to your "fake wall" you could cancel the buy. idk just somethign I was wondering about.

Recently it has come to my attention that BTC supports 2 factor transactions as of BIP 38.
This looks like a great way to get around this problem.
http://www.bit2factor.org/

I think I remember reading something about a 3 party implementation too with the third party as arbitor, except they can't run off with the money.
Seems like we'll be fine. Best thing about bitcoin. We can always upgrade the protocol!!!

Lol . I KNOW. Its only jumping up and down 30% day to day now. So boring . You know what, lets go play the lottery or gamble instead. It'll be more exciting L).

Personally, I don't think its hard to predict the long term movement at least for the next while. I think it'll go up (eventually). Therefore my plan would be by a lot at the start and hold. I think it would be better than buying over time.

Yes, that was half the point of my post. I did not use the word "ban" except to complain about it. Other than that, does anyone actually know what they actually said?

OK, actually doing a protective trade is putting in stop loss orders ....

You buy at 1190 while almost simultaneously putting in a stop loss order to sell if price goes under 1180. If you missed the bottom, too bad, you lost 10 bucks. But you can't lose more than that.

Of course, this is still an annoying trade to try to get get right because you'll miss the bottom half the time and lose small ammounts of money often.

I'm partially ask this because I really don't know.

But also because the use of the word ban is really annoying me.

They pretty much just warned everyone its a really volatile thing to invest in (which I hope everyone could already tell) and that their banks shouldn't deal with it because its too risky of an investment.

I disagree that theres anything logical about it. It might theoretically redistribute the wealth (which i guess would theoretically fix things), however, impossible to implement and as if offshore bank accounts weren't enough, we have gold, bitcoins, and dummy coorporations. Impossible to implement fairly and would drive capital investment as FAR AWAY as possible.

My points is that even without Bitcoins, they would never implement something so stupid.

If you read the prequel , they weren't quite that oblivious (or happy). Just self denial.

Oh wait, thats us.

Its simple, just double the number of people who are interested in it now want to get into bitcoins. Thats when price will be stable at 2000 at least.

lol
"DANGGIT Bitcoin fell that much?

Oh wait ...."

It'll jump way past it to 3000 sometime within the next couple months and then fall back down to a bit above 2000 a couple days later. Then it'll either stay or crash way down.

HUmble bundle. Asic miners. Paying back my friends for stuff.

18. Unfortunately used the wrong bank account to do my trading. Suntrust closed my account which since it was still a joint with my mom and my brother messed up theirs too. Should have switched over to my individual account quicker. At least I can pay them back/justify the trouble of switching banks with that 1000% return.

Actually I don't think I did. If they had their own client without TX. Lets say they have 20% of the network has hash rate.  It would take 50 minutes for a single confirmation. No one would use it unless the person they send to takes zero (or maybe 1 confirmation).  At that point it would only be used for Amazon purchase (assuming we're using Amazon as a stand in).  At that point they might as well just make the transactions off block. Where did my reasoning go wrong?

OK, I've skimmed over a bit, but I don't see the point of this argument. So we're saying that in 30 years amazon is gigantic. So the point is they're linking their payment thing with their own client with no transaction fees.

It isn't that this would not be an issue, its just that its a terribly stupid way of doing it.

The easiest way to get away from fees would just to do their transactions off network. Get people to send btc to an online "wallet" and just do everything off network once they get the btc balance. You can't stop them from doing this and the transactions are just as feeless as if they did the stupid own wallet.

The wallet idea is stupid. No one would ever use something with a 50 minute confirmation time unless somebody accepted a 0 confirmation spend, which only amazon would accept so they might as well take their transaction off network on their own wallets.

If someone sees something I don't, please respond.

Its not like you could stop them or that it would be illegal or against the way a lot of the current stuff is handled ....

Yeah, mines been processing for 12 days now.

Nothing on the support ticket....

Yeah, I meant safe, not save. But it is pretty safe. In what way is it not?

The problem with a large mining drop, is if it happens too fast, we could get stuck on a block for a LONG time. Like some of those ult currencies out there. But hopefully it would never drop that fast.