Low volume is because we are reaching a tipping point. Both buyers and sellers are on hold. There are two options:
a) consolidation phase, plus steady and sustainable growth (no more bubbling for now)
b) bear market, slow and deep decline (as per 2011)
Anyhow, depth on both sides of the order book is big and healthy. ATM sellers are placing asks and not dumping, buyers are placing bids and not making market orders.
We will see where we are heading at very soon. I say give 70% chances to consolidation phase; 30% chances for bear market.
You forgot the third option: once price stabilizes for a bit and people see it is not going down anymore, they will start buying hard again and the price will bubble up over 500. |
|
|
|
No one wants to buy so high. Price will drop. Unfortunatelly I am a bull at higher levels...  No one wants to sell so low. Price will rise. |
|
|
|
|
You forgot to mention the 30 btc sign-up charge to use MPEx.
There is nothing wrong with the html on MPEx, the choice to not use fancy css is just a style preference of the guy who made it. It is meant to be functional, efficient, reliable, etc.; it is designed for function not form.
Between BitFunder and Btct, I prefer btct. You say the design is bad and hard to navigate, I think the design is just fine, he has put many function in at the request of people who actually use the site. Specifically, I like the charts better on BTCT, and they send out email notifications when orders are filled or when you receive dividends.
If you want to see the difference between the two platforms, consider the pass-throughs to S.BITBET, which is traded on MPEx. There are equivalent pass-throughs on bitfunder and btct.co, but the price is much lower on bitfunder because there just isn't as much volume there.
And it is not clear what you mean by 'normal'? What are you defining as normal?
|
|
|
|
The current alternative currencies subforum is a complete disaster, but there doesn't seem to be much interest in organizing it. I suggest the admins should talk with some respectable members of the community and arrange an official "altcointalk" spin-off, to be mantained by folks actually interested in altcoins. Thoughts?
Nothing is stopping proponents of the various alt-coins from making their own forum which they can organize to their hearts content instead of sponging off bitcoins success. |
|
|
|
Why don't they change the unit from BTC to a mBTC then everyone can afford bitcoin?
isnt 1 mBTC equaling 10 satoshi? No, 1 mB is 0.001 btc or 100000 satoshis. You might be thinking of uB (microbitcoins) which are 100 satoshis. |
|
|
|
|
Maybe you should mention that the April Statement is up?
I am looking at the April statement, and I am not sure if I understand everything correctly. Down at the bottom, there are some "Reserve" lines, which are currently negative. Will dividend payments start once these are brought up above zero?
I see a bunch of lines for sever renting, you mentioned that you are switching to owning servers since that would be more economical, when does the switch take place?
Under expenses, there is a line with a bitpay fees of -0.2596, but in the dollar column all the expenses are shown as positive values. Is this a mistake, and it should be a positive expense, or did bitpay actually charge you a negative fee?
|
|
|
|
Two things you're forgetting. Gold is quite often referred to as GLD and silver is referred to as SLV. Plus, in the not-too-distant future all of those other bullshit national currencies aren't going to exist anyways, flushing all of the current ISO labels right down the toilet. The new labels will be BTC, LTC, FRC, NMC, etc.
Maybe you do not understand what ISO is? They are an international standard setting organization, the currency codes are just one of many, many things they have set standards for. Most people in the US never use the abbreviation USD, they just say $. But people in many other countries also use $ as the symbol for their currency, and so in places (like foreign exchange) where there is room for confusion it is better to use the clear, standardized form, USD. There is a systematic standard set up, it is useful, we should embrace it and use it to our advantage rather than just throwing it out. |
|
|
|
Here's a chemistry question: How can I get Scopolamine to work without killing my victim being harmful and how much should I use to sufficiently convince them to empty their bank account into mine properly test the supposed mind-control effects? (Also where can I buy it in the form of an aerosol spray or blow dart?) That is not a chemistry question, that is more of a medical question. Good point. I'll cross-post in the "Medical Consult" thread. But to answer your question, you just have to have a low enough dose for the drug to not kill the victim. From the article you linked, typical doses are very small, on the microgram level. Administering this against somebodies will is dangerous and should not be done. |
|
|
|
Here's a chemistry question: How can I get Scopolamine to work without killing my victim being harmful and how much should I use to sufficiently convince them to empty their bank account into mine properly test the supposed mind-control effects? (Also where can I buy it in the form of an aerosol spray or blow dart?) That is not a chemistry question, that is more of a medical question. |
|
|
|
How can withdraw to real money from Bitcoins?
Bitcoins are real money. Do you want to trade your bitcoins for government funny money? Try localbitcoins.com, or go to the IRC channel #bitcoin-otc, or if you are in the US then Coinbase.com might be able to help you, or you could try CampBX.com, or you could try MtGox.com, or bitstamp.com, or just google "bitcoin exchange" and you should be able to find something. |
|
|
|
Well, the (pseudo)ephedrine question seems popular... Lets reverse it for fun and profit: what could be effective means to significantly hinder or stop easy removal of hydroxyl from any ephedrine stereoisomer and still keep reasonable bioavailability and vasoconstrictive properties for typical use?
Yeah, I don't think that would work. These small molecules are very specific shapes to fit into the receptors in the body which lets them act as drugs. If you change the structure, it will drastically change the bodies response. Just look as pseudoephedrine and methamphetamine, they only differ by a single atom (pseudoephedrine has one more oxygen) but have very different bodily responses. Any molecule you could build which the body could convert back to pseudoephedrine, it would be at least as easy for a "chemist" to reverse the change. Might it be, that indirect approach can be considered - typical ephedrine use has quite strict temperature, pH and other environment limits, that human body dictates. Lets say the molecular structure is unchanged but there are added substances, that for example are inert at body temperature but react unfavorably over 60c and reduce drastically possible methamphetamine production. I am sure purification by different ways is possible but if main goal is to rise production cost beyond usability for "chemist", what could be possible approaches? I think answering this would require more understanding of the biochemistry involved in the interaction between the pseudoephedrine and the body than I currently have. My guess is that there is some receptor in the body which has an active site which binds to pseudoephedrine, so I doubt you could change the shape of the pseudoephedrine and still have it work the same. If just one end of the molecule is binding, then perhaps you could add something to the other end of the molecule which would prohibit it from being turned into methamphetamine, but I kinda doubt that. Just mixing another chemical with the pseudoephedrine will also not work, people are already doing some sort of separation to get the pseudoephedrine out of the pills. Basically, you will just have to admit there is no way to completely stop people from doing something you do not want them to do. Until people stop wanting to do drugs there will be a market for drugs, and if there is a market for drugs there will be people who will find ways to make them. The only solution is to teach people correct principals and they will correct their own behavior. |
|
|
|
I would like to give my opinion about the issue. I think we should stop using Bitcoin as the name of the coin and just leave that term for naming the protocol or network. And then we should use independent names for the different current Bitcoin, milliBitcoin, microBitcon and so on.
For me, to start using mBTC to get people more confident just because they are dealing with smaller numbers does not make much sense. After all, people are stupid , but not THAT stupid. And I do not see why someone who is dubious about jumping into the wagon if 1 BTC = 130 $ would start buying if we display 1 mBTC = 0.13 $ instead.
However, I do believe people would be more confident if we actually go one step further and use independent names and drop the whole milli and micro terminology.
So, for example, we have 1 alpha = 1 000 betas = 1 000 000 gammas.
"Would you like to buy some Bitcoin? At the moment 1 beta is 0.5 $" .
" You can pay in Bitcoin if you like. This hardrive is 350 gammas"
...
The names alpha, beta and gamma are just examples for potential names. What I want to emphasize is that to use the term Bitcoin (and derivatives) for both the network and the units is, in my opinion , a bad idea.
i agree that in the long run we need names, not milli and micro. and as said here the first name should be of the middle unit between satoshi and bitcoin... 0.00001 bitcoins should have a name first because it makes more sense. In the US we measure lengths in feet and inches and miles, we have names for each of these things and converting between them is a bitch. Elsewhere, people use millimeters and meters and kilometers, and converting between them can easily be done in your head. Now you want to name something (0.00001) that is not the middle between bitcoins (1.0) and satoshis (0.00000001), the actual middle would be what some people above want to call bits (0.0001), but is also not millibits (0.001) or microbits (0.000001)? What you typed (0.00001) I guess could be a millibitcent, there were some people trying to name it that a while back, or you could call it a kilosatoshi. I would call it either 0.01 mB or 10 uB. |
|
|
|
And inside jokes are only funny if you are on the inside. Otherwise they just sound stupid.
true. I'm sorry, I thought this meme was more widespread. Eh, it may be and I just have never heard of it before. But I also tend to frown on stupid internet memes, so there are probably lots that I have heard of but just make me mad. |
|
|
|
Here in the US I think banks can set their own withdrawal limits for their ATMs? I have not checked in a while, but the ATMs I usually use have a $500 limit. A few years back I was going to buy a truck from one of my girlfriend's friends (I had just totaled my car running into a deer). My girlfriend picked me up and drove me to get the truck, about an hour drive. I had planned to write a check, but realized I forgot my checkbook at home, and it was evening so all the banks were closed. So we stopped at an ATM and both used the max withdrawal of $500 to get the $1000 I needed for the truck. I never officially paid her back, but now we are married and she just takes my whole paycheck  I am surprised they totally turned you away just because you didn't have any ID (which is a dumb thing to do, why don't you just always carry your ID?), Isn't there some sort of security questions you can answer and forms to fill out certifiying you are who you say you are in the case when you don't have any ID? All that hulabaloo for just 600 pounds? |
|
|
|
Since the ISO doesn't have a 4217 code for Bitcoin, but BTC would conflict with the existing global standards, it's unlikely that we would that 'code' if we were to list Bitcoins.
Let's just hope they don't accidentally the internet in the process. Huh? Did you leave out an important word in that sentence? I feel like there should be a verb in there somewhere? notice how there's also a verb missing in the text I quoted (bolded above)? it's a meme “I Accidentally…” is a catchphrase, internet slang, and trolling mechanism meant to exploit the imagination of English-speaking internet users. It is used by constructing a complete sentence that begins with “I accidentally” and removing the verb, leaving readers wondering what had been there in the first place.
And inside jokes are only funny if you are on the inside. Otherwise they just sound stupid. |
|
|
|
Since the ISO doesn't have a 4217 code for Bitcoin, but BTC would conflict with the existing global standards, it's unlikely that we would that 'code' if we were to list Bitcoins.
Let's just hope they don't accidentally the internet in the process. Huh? Did you leave out an important word in that sentence? I feel like there should be a verb in there somewhere? You're only allowed to buy vowels, not whole words, silly. I guess we could just add the ever useful stand-in verb? "Let's just hope they don't accidentally smurf the internet in the process." |
|
|
|
I happen to fully agree with this: we should start using mBTC
Psychological factor is VERY important. I'm sure that a lot of people would be eager to jump on the train if we started using mBTC, because +$100 for one unit of a currency, virtual or not, sounds way too expensive for the average Joe - even if technically is irrelevant.
Maybe we should just start pricing things in satoshis, or sat? Currently 1 USD = 885000 sat. |
|
|
|
Since the ISO doesn't have a 4217 code for Bitcoin, but BTC would conflict with the existing global standards, it's unlikely that we would that 'code' if we were to list Bitcoins.
Let's just hope they don't accidentally the internet in the process. Huh? Did you leave out an important word in that sentence? I feel like there should be a verb in there somewhere? |
|
|
|
Difficulty does not affect mining rate.
It doesn't? Then I guess I STILL don't get it... Any changes to the total network hash rate are offset by adjustment of difficulty, so the network always produces 150 new bitcoins per hour (for about 3.5 more years, when it will drop to 75 new bitcoins per hour). |
|
|
|
This reminds me of something I've been meaning to put to the community for general discussion: One of the biggest hindrances to Bitcoin adoption is that it has so many amazing features that are so unbelievable that it is almost impossible for anyone to process and believe all of those features at once because it sets off their bullshit detectors. Or it just sails by them with a *whoosh* because it's so outside their everyday experience. The more succinctly you try to present Bitcoin's value proposition, the less it really registers with people.
We need to capture people's imaginations and engage their emotions in order for them to fully internalize what Bitcoin has to offer, and sci-fi references provide a powerful way to do that.
The proof is right there: the fact that bitcoins have all the essential characteristics of beamable gold coins is all by itself enough to propel Bitcoin into the mainstream, yet that is only one of its many amazing features. If it only had one killer feature it would be easier to sell, but it has many so it's actually too unbelievable for most people.
How about making sci-fi/fantasy explanations for all Bitcoin's great features?
There are so many features to bitcoins, as you so aptly point out, and so many reasons to use bitcoins, that there is no way that all these things will apply to everybody. So instead of pitching bitcoins on all the amazing features and the philosophical reasons you like it, you should cut down your explanation to just what is applicable to the person you are talking to. For example, some people get excited about bitcoins because they want to get government out of the money printing business; other people really don't care if the government controls the money but they are interested in bitcoins because it allows them to send money to family on the other side of the world for very low fees. So to help people understand bitcoins, first you need to know what they want to do with money, and then you can show them how doing that is better with bitcoins. Bitcoin addresses are also like mokeskin pouches for gold coins: "A mokeskin pouch is a kind of small bag that is used for storing items, which no one but the owner can get out." (Harry Potter)
...except that these pouches can be stored in your brain!
And while a mokeskin pouch looks small and unassuming but may carry very large objects, a Bitcoin address can carry huge amounts of wealth and are not merely small and unassuming but completely invisible! (Yes, the fact that it's stored in your brain entails this already, but see the previous post. People need all the implications driven home for them, or else *whoosh*.)
Nice analogy for the HP fans! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
