its called hoarding!!!
erm you mean Hodling. |
|
|
|
eh there at least 3~5 orders of magnitude left for btc to grow into
3 orders of magnitude is 1000. So if BTC is $400 today it will be worth $400 000 a coin then. Five orders is 100000, so btc will be worth $40,000,000 a coin. Forty million a coin!!! I will be rich with my tenth of a BTC coin holdings! Some people think that is rich and some don't. Some people are not happy without many billions. Someday it will be trillions. Besides, he said 3-5, not absolutely 5. |
|
|
|
Dollars, euros and pounds are easy to visualize: They’re physical objects ...
Dollars, euros and pounds are not physical. They are no more tangible than bitcoins. Token, coin, whatever -- I challenge anyone to show me a bitcoin.
Is that a veiled attempt at begging for bitcoins? No, just a challenge, and a learning opportunity. If your disagree with the OP, then I challenge you to point to one of these bitcoin tokens. is this an ontological argument now? |
|
|
|
I've never paid so much as a satoshi in fees for transactions. Why pay for something if you don't have to?
You got away with stealing someone else's work because they didn't put in theft protection yet. Don't expect to get away with it forever. |
|
|
|
bitcoinwisdom calculator is awesome. Too bad none of the calculation I input give me positive ROI unless I reduce the difficulty increment to 4%.
Can you lower your electricity price? |
|
|
|
Token, coin, whatever -- I challenge anyone to show me a bitcoin.
Is that a veiled attempt at begging for bitcoins? Token: a voucher Voucher: a receipt Receipt: the action of receiving something or the fact of its being received Token == the action of receiving something or the fact of its being received |
|
|
|
The only Bitcoin squatters I'm aware of are with Intersango  |
|
|
|
Metcalfe's "law" is used in bitcoin to "prove" that X will grow like Y squared, for some suitable quantities X and Y. Problem is, the law does not say that Y will continue growing, that it is not being affected by MtGOX, that it will not suffer from ApplePay, that it is not determined by China, etc.
You seem to be describing interruptions to the growth of the network, but you are NOT describing the law to be invalid.... because the question becomes whether the network keeps growing or NOT and that may NOT be known while we are in the middle of the growth whether it has substantially slowed down or stopped... but after the fact, we may be able to look back and see the direction of the growth... or have better means to measure the extent of the growth... which some of those measurement systems already exist in bitcoin... but still does NOT necessarily tell us to where the trajectory is going or whether the trajectory has been materially and significantly interrupted. There are several problems there... For one thing, how to define the "size of the network", and how to measure it? Total hash power is a poor measure, since over the lst couple of years the hash power is now concentrated in a few large pools. The justification given for Metcalfe's law is that each node can interact with all the other N-1 nodes, so as N increases the number of possible interactions grows as N 2, and the value of the network is guessed to be proportional to that number. But if the network, instead of adding mode nodes, is concentrating all use in a few big nodes, the interaction actually goes down. And, aniway, miners don't interact with each other. Hashrate is a measure of miners, not pools. Miners are independent entities that can change pools at any time. You can't use pools as a reliable source because they are not physical, only the miners themselves are physical.
I explained already why I believe that the blockchain traffic (whether measured in TX, BTC, or USD) is mostly bitcoins moving between addresses with the same owner; so it cannot be assumed to measure the size of the network, either. In fact, we do not have any reliable data about the bitcoin economy, except the market price, the number of coins mined, and the total hash power.
Those transactions pay fees. You think people just move money around for no reason? If you don't like the metric, then claim that it needs to be weighted, not discounted. I would conservatively guess transaction volume about 20% as actual transactions because businesses report actual sales in bitcoins. In the plots that are said to show that bitcoin follows Metcalfe's law, the last year is squeezed into a tiny area a few millimeters tall by a couple centimetres wide. But that is where most of the "weight" is. It is like plotting some property of bodies of water, from a teaspoon to the Pacific Ocean, and having the data for all the seas and oceans squeezed into that tiny sliver of the plot. Why should one assume that a property that holds for small bodies of water, from teaspoon-size to lake-size, will continue holding for ocean-size ones? (And indeed we know that real oceans have many phenomena that you don't see in lakes, like currents driven by climate differences. In particular, for all small bodies of water there are bodies that are 10x bigger; but that is not true for oceans...) If that "Bitcoin Metcalfe" plot were to be trimmed to the last 12 months and expanded to fill all the plot area, what would it show?
You are the one claiming that people use Metcalfe's Law to describe Bitcoin growth. That model is too simple for my tastes. I never read anything about Metcalfe's Law being fractal where you could zoom in and out to see the same patterns. It seems to me it's not really a predictive model and that there are many variations. Your argument is a strawman, because you haven't specified exactly which variant is "used in bitcoin." |
|
|
|
Did you have a Lite-Brite as a child? |
|
|
|
If you don't want to pay taxes, you can always renounce your citizenship and move out.  I'm not American, but I thought that Americans have to pay taxes even if they're not living there. I could be wrong though, it was something I heard once I think. When you renounce your citizenship, you are no longer American. Also when you rescind your citizenship. |
|
|
|
Only when there's blood in the street, you buy.
Nobody knows when that is. It's better to use dollar cost averaging. |
|
|
|
|
We all hear about using Bitcoin to fund defense counsel, but what if people start using Bitcoin to fund lawsuits against bad agents? What would happen?
|
|
|
|
|
The price is low not because people are afraid of Bitcoin, but because they fear their own public service politicians and bureaucrats.
|
|
|
|
Not very educated in understanding what communism exactly stands for, are we?
That was hyperbole. Let's break this down. Investment into BTC's unit price, means investment into new coin creation, which in turn means investment into mining.
There are half as many new bitcoins created per block every 4 years. That is to create artificial and predictable scarcity. Basically, everything is known in order to decide to mine bitcoins. Miners have to decide if it is a business they want to get into, not bitcoin buyers. Everything else right now is speculation until adoption increases.
To pay those who waste their money in building and buying the mining equipment, that doesn't improve anything in bitcoin's network or anywhere else. Investing into bitcoin means rewarding useless work. So, bitcoin can be taken as an investment, but it surely is a dumb investment.
What about non-mining Bitcoin based businesses? Are they dumb investments too? Who are you to define what work is useless or not? It's smarter to look at BTC as an short term gamble, where you put some money in, outplay some other players and take more money out.
Life is a gamble, but you take educated risks. If you decide to take a chance on Bitcoin, remember that once you sell, you are out. When the next bubble comes, your orders may not be filled because the exchanges are unregulated. |
|
|
|
The soulless hyenas of the bitcoin community are getting extremely desperate and are actually recommending people to borrow money.
People should take loans, so they would channel it to the pockets of others, by making their coins worth more.
Disgusting..
Like nobody ever took out a loan to invest in anything before. Are you a communist? What has investing to do with bitcoin? Someone who borrows to buy bitcoin has a gambling problem. Only people that lose investments say that. |
|
|
|
The soulless hyenas of the bitcoin community are getting extremely desperate and are actually recommending people to borrow money.
People should take loans, so they would channel it to the pockets of others, by making their coins worth more.
Disgusting..
Like nobody ever took out a loan to invest in anything before. Are you a communist? |
|
|
|
He should sue and let them defend their right to be bad journalists.
This is actually a right of Newsweek. If they are bad journalists then people will not buy their magazine nor will they read their news on their website. Not checking facts and reporting false information they believe to be true is not illegal and if they were to lose such a case it would have chilling effects on the first amendment. You mean that piece of paper they used to call the Bill of Rights? That is so 20th century. |
|
|
|
There's two kinds of people: those that understand logic, and fucktards.  |
|
|
|
This is just an uncomfortable pause while everyone waits to see if the not- so- invisible- hand can continue to control the confidence of the market.
That hand will get bit by honeybadger if it keeps teasing and pulling away like this. |
|
|
|
|
He should sue and let them defend their right to be bad journalists.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
