 just sayin... DUH! wtf did you think was gonna happen? The Fed was chartered in 1913, arguably it wasn't the reserve currency for a while, and also arguably IMF SDRs should have their time in there, but is really just a basket of other national fiats currently. And up until the last half century, each of these was merely a proxy for gold. But... other than that yeah baby, CCMF |
|
|
|
So does a steeper incline mean more bids/asks?
Is this image bullish because it shows huge support or bearish because it shows huge resistance? I am used to level 2 bid/ask with stock trading just never seen a bid depth like the one posted...
You have to take the image in context. It's a bit steep on the asks at the moment. If the price has just moved, that can mean different things. At the moment, it just means there's some resistance. But many bids get moved so it doesn't necessarily mean much overall. It's fairly boring when things are static but when things start moving, you get to see a bit of the battle that's being played out. Bidwalls being eaten for breakfast, struggles, dumps, upsets, blood, sweat, tears, urine... When both sides deepen as they have recently, it usually means there's a fight brewing. Yes, when on the move, the side with the steeper wall tends to be the direction of movement. |
|
|
|
OK, jokers.... I'm going to pretend you are serious.  Only wholesale socks. By the thousand pair. Some very amazing handcrafted alpaca wool felted items too. I'll upload pics at some point. Alpaca wool Felting, carding, spinning lessons also are available for the asking. |
|
|
|
Priceless data:: An Order-of-Magnitude Estimate of the Relative Sustainability of the Bitcoin Network pic.twitter.com/dGBsXqzXPp
I disagree with the "emission trend: decreasing" for bitcoin. Ok, in the very long run this is true, but if bitcoin will pick up like most of us here think it will, then the BTC price will go up a lot, and so will mining investment/electricity consumption. Every reward halving should cut that in two though. However unlike all the others it is neatly divided by Moore's law. |
|
|
|
|
Oh... and it is going to save the world from itself, there's that....
|
|
|
|
Even better. Much better. For every new law, it should be required to remove an old one. I'm going to have to send my local Senator some Bitcoin Specie, and New Liberty Dollars. Only to be opened when legal in the state. |
|
|
|
My llama may be interested. He's been creeping over as I read your thread. Unfortunately, he's mean as hell and only gets along with horses.  From what I've heard, llama can breed with alpaca, myth? |
|
|
|
|
Cat and goat would both be welcome. (you too)
There are coyote native in the area, so cat should be inside at night, and there is a safe pen for the goat. (Alpaca make great protection animals.)
|
|
|
|
...But the fact that we are on CNBC and Bloomberg at all is still a little amazing to me.  Indeed. I think back to 2011 when it was really sort of a ridiculous contrast understanding what bitcoin could become, and seeing the present state of things. Having bitcoin discussed in *any* mainstream outlet, much less major financial news networks, just seemed so far off... Its been one of my bellweather markers on the way to mainstream. When bloomberg (or cnbc) put bitcoin exchange prices on their TV ticker. There is increasing talk on these news, so often dismissal outright, and occasional visionary optimist. (Hi @mattmiller1973, Bloomberg is lucky to have you.) At least they are talking. One can only be dismissive for so long until it becomes evident that it just isn't going away. |
|
|
|
Obviously banning is not the right to do and it hinders the freedom of speech, but you have to consider that most of the climate deniers are way too vocal (as most of them are politically or money driven) and it makes it hard to have a civil conversation with them, heck some did and were found guilty to provide fake and trafficed data as fact for the sake of winning an argument. So really I understand why banning is a bad thing, but at the same time I can understand that it might have been the only solutions for mods to keep some sections clean, only that, but it's not that bad either because climate deniers could make their own reddit and no one will stop them to say whatever they want there so it's not as bad as it seems
reddit is the great landscape of the unwashed scientist. It is less peer review than it is a mob ridicule.. Even so. That is pretty much how science is done. Scientists argue with each other, then they get out things to measure, then they argue about the measurement tools and whether the right things are being measured. When someone ultimately wins, sometimes unfortunately they are sore winners and boot their noble opposition out of the scientific community. Such hubris damages science though. Making separate-but-equal discussions is not better. |
|
|
|
I was reading a few old threads (2012 ish i think) where price was 10-30. People said 1k would happen in 2016. No one mentioned 100 (which came shortly after). 1k happened 2013. Many people say 1-8k 2015. Not sure, lets see what happens 2015-2016. 100 and 1K were both in 2013, yes? |
|
|
|
Leveraged long Finex holders, how does it feel to pay 1% interest per day?
As long as I'm in the green totally, I'm happy. Isn't the interest rate the same if going short? I think so. No its nothing like the rate going short, its like 100 times cheaper. How can you not know this yet trade on leverage? How strong of an "overbought" signal is that? I don't watch margin rates much. |
|
|
|
|
There is an AirBnB competitor that takes Bitcoin in the EU, but none in the USA.
I may start one unless or until AirBnB starts accepting bitcoin.
Let me know if you want in.
|
|
|
|
I run a few systems with bitcoin-qt (now Bitcoin Core) to support the network.
I am a bit less keen on the v0.9 client with the x.509 centralisation.
This article by Mike Hearn has helped me understand the X.509 solution for Bitcoin. I hope it helps you too. https://medium.com/p/b64cf5912aa7X509 is not centralized, it is hierarchichal. I feel it is the best approach for Bitcoin to succeed. It is less a lack of understanding (I've run x.509 CA and RA departments for Telcos) and more a fundamental disagreement that the best they can do on this today is good enough or necessary enough. Perhaps I am just more patient. |
|
|
|
is that борщ in the pic ? да борщ и водка Yes, borcht. Moscow layover morning snack. сметанки не хватает! в борще Have you seen pictures of the girl eating this? It is surprising that ANY sour cream passes her lips. I think she could live on a couple hundred calories a day. |
|
|
|
What would realistically happen if it wasn't legalized?
Also, what has happened to the bill? What sort of timeframe are we generally supposed to expect here for it to become law?
This is not a new law to "legalize" bitcoin. It is a change to the wording of an existing stupid law that has never been enforced which prohibits anything but lawful money, and changes it to include "alternative currency" as not prohibited. This is understood to include things like Bitcoin and other alternative currencies categorically as no longer prohibited. “…no corporation, flexible purpose corporation, association, or individual shall not issue or put in circulation, as money, anything but the lawful money of the United States.” And its not even making a new law, just adding comments to the existing one to say that this doesn't prohibit bitcoin. It never did, but could have been read to have done so. There are some Bitcoin companies that don't do business in California partly because of this law, so this may be good news for Bitcoin businesses in California, as it removes a legal risk that otherwise might take a legal opinion letter or other document to form agreements. (Agreements to do illegal things are unenforceable) This also closes a legal loophole. If I am a Bitcoin business in California and I contract to pay someone bitcoin in exchange for something, and the price of bitcoin goes up between the order and the payment, and if I were a scoundrel, I could invoke the existing law to make the claim that the contract can not require me to do something illegal and so is unenforceable contract... the debt could then be paid with Legal Tender instead. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
