Ron Paul voted against civil rights
First, there is a difference between 'civil rights' and The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Second, Ron Paul was not in Congress in 1964 to vote on said act. He has said he approved of eliminating racial discrimination from government actions but opposes federal laws against private businesses discriminating on race. |
|
|
|
the core protocol has survived every attack and misfortune What attacks has Bitcoin itself been subject to? (Not counting attacks against MtGox et al) |
|
|
|
|
You aren't cool unless you are on the mtgox spam email list.
|
|
|
|
|
If it's due to a quick large sell, then how come the price is bid back up to exactly the original price within seconds?
If it does get bid back up so quickly within seconds, the person conducting their large sell lost tens of millions of dollars by not doing a limit sell and waiting 5 minutes for it to complete.
edit: And if this is a glitch, I have seen it happen probably 7-8 times in the past few years.
|
|
|
|
I apologize if this belongs somewhere else - Does anyone know why certain stocks will have moments where the trading price drops significantly, just for a moment, and then goes right back to where it was? For example, yesterday, Tuesday the 20th, on this stock for SPY: (30 minute chart)  Looking at a 1-minute chart tells me that that entire drop occurred in less than one minute. Someone told me that this is the "market maker" "pulling out the stops," implying that there is a person who arranges buys and sells who wants to punish people who have a lot of stop-sells on a certain stock, and who momentarily prevents higher-price buyers from being able to buy. 1. Is there a person consciously and actively doing this? 2. Why would he do this? Is there something bad about a lot of people having stop-buy orders in place? 3. Does/could this situation ever occur the Bitcoin markets? I imagine not since I don't think mtgox allows stop orders. |
|
|
|
|
A fractional-reserve bank can tell you you have Bitcoins on deposit which are not actually in their possession. Thus, if enough people believe such fraudulent bankers, the *apparent* number of Bitcoins can increase past 21 million. But the blockchain will only ever reflect 21 million.
|
|
|
|
a mysterious computer programmer who illegally invented a new online currency Why's it got to be illegal? |
|
|
|
Hi all,
My guess is it will initially boost bitcoin as other payment methods are squeezed out of online grey markets, but will turn in on itself when exchanges start to be blocked or even shutdown by US banks.
How would SOPA lead to exchanges being blocked by banks? What is the connection? |
|
|
|
Unless you have an enormous amount of Bitcoin or dollars, this bot would quickly run out of either Bitcoins or dollars. I don't see why this should be so. Ah, I misunderstood what you intended the bot to do. You would never run out of either Bitcoin or dollars, but as the price varied further from the price you were trying to stabilize to, your bot would become asymptotically less effective at moving the price. |
|
|
|
I think I can speak for all Bitcoin users around the world that we certainly appreciate such a magnanimous gesture.
It's not entirely magnanimous since I just cashed out at a slight profit, making up for all my losses on the way down from $17. But it'll be nice to not watch the charts like a hawk for a while, kind of looking forward to it, really. We found the Manipulator Stabilizer!  It's been really funny seeing people complain about market volatility literally every time I'm not stabilizing the market, like this past weekend when I was otherwise occupied. btw: I've been experimenting with a trading bot idea in summer. Named it "equilibrium trading". It aims to make trades so that the following is true: <btc balance> * <exchange rate> = <usd balance> This should have a stabilizing effect while taking advantage of volatility of a certain frequency range (given by the treshold at which it will put orders), right? Unless you have an enormous amount of Bitcoin or dollars, this bot would quickly run out of either Bitcoins or dollars. |
|
|
|
Import is bad because it can lead to a situation like:
Start up bitcoin, see you have 1 BTC in your wallet (sent to an imported private key in block 111,000)
So you send half of it to your friend to pay for lunch.
... bitcoin chugs away, and it turns out that 1BTC was spent already, in block 190,000.
User is all "wtf??? where did my BTC go???"
This can already happen, say, if a person has a copy of their wallet on their Linux partition and another on their Windows partition. If you spend the money on the Linux partition, and then a few days later boot to Windows, it will appear you are richer than you are until the blocks all download. And correct me if I'm wrong, but the person being sent the nonresistant half bitcoin would never see the transaction, right? |
|
|
|
The supporters of Bitcoin would say centralization is to blame, since it allows the manipulation of the monetary system in favor of the wealthy. However, since most gold monetary systems were also centralized, how could centralization explain fiat monetary systems, especially debt-based ones? Clearly, centralization is not enough to explain our current monetary system.
First, what do you mean that 'mos gold monetary systems were also centralized' ? Are you talking about gold and silver certificates which were then later not redeemable in gold and silver? Centralization was a necessary step to wean the public off of gold and silver money and move to a more centralized system of purely fiat money. (It's also not just a matter of centralization, it's how much power over the money supply the centralized authority has.) It was an extremely gradual process from the gold standard of the 1800s, to the increasing use of gold certificates, to the introduction of Federal Reserve Notes, to the confiscation of privately held gold in 1933 (but dollars were still redeemable in gold by foreign governments), to the removal of silver from the coinage in 1965, to the point where dollars were no longer redeemable for gold in any way in 1971. Each step gave more power to the Fed to create money at will. Basically, I'm not sure what your question is. Centralization was necessary for the government/Fed to get more power to create money - why do you think this says anything about the merits of a gold standard? What I am saying is that commodity money in general (and gold money in particular) leads to fractional reserve banking, which leads to central banking, no matter how gradually. As I am also saying that Bitcoin is essentially different. Bankers will, if the law and the market allow them, move toward fractional reserve banking under fiat or commodity money. They will do it regardless of the fact that there was a gold standard, not because of the fact. Saying that commodity money leads to fractional reserve banking is like saying that private property leads to trespassing. Yes, people trespass on private property, but they do it in spite of the fact that it's private property, not because it's private property. And the right response is to uphold and enforce the private property, not to embrace the trespassing. |
|
|
|
I am looking to in the future sell bitcoins straight for cash
Your signature: "I only use bitcoins for bitcoin related projects (I never exchange for cash)"  |
|
|
|
Fractional reserve banking consists in creating new money from loans, and Bitcoin does not allow anyone to create new Bitcoins at will. Therefore, implementing fractional-reserve banking with Bitcois would involve creating another monetary system in which Bitcoin would be just a monetary unit, and no longer a monetary system. Finally, although the two monetary systems could eventually coexist, they would remain distinct: there is no such thing as fractional-reserve banking within the Bitcoin monetary system. Funny, I think of the lack of exchange depth and corresponding illiquidity for a high volumes of USD-BTC makes the exchanges essentially fractional reserve USD banks. Bitcoins may be worth $3 each, but if everyone tries to cash out at once, they'll be in for a rude surprise as this is essentially a bank run (exchange run?) that causes liquidity problems, just like a real bank run, except that the last person to try to cash out only gets $0.30 on the dollar (or whatever). As much as we might all like for bitcoins to be a standalone currency, I think it will always be the child compared to USD, at least for the forseeable future (which is 3-5 years, in my book). Lack of market liquidity is not good, but it is completely unrelated to anything like fractional reserve banking and bank runs. It's an inherent risk in owning anything that you might not be able to sell it for what you paid. Bank runs occur when people have been told they own dollars but those dollars have already been used by someone else. Owners of Bitcoin are, or should be, under no false impressions that their investments will be redeemable for a set number of dollars. |
|
|
|
Fractional reserve banking consists in creating new money from loans, and Bitcoin does not allow anyone to create new Bitcoins at will. Therefore, implementing fractional-reserve banking with Bitcois would involve creating another monetary system in which Bitcoin would be just a monetary unit, and no longer a monetary system. Finally, although the two monetary systems could eventually coexist, they would remain distinct: there is no such thing as fractional-reserve banking within the Bitcoin monetary system. Such a system you describe already exists: Mt.Gox payments can be made from one person to another without ever being processed through the Bitcoin blockchain. There is no evidence that Mt.Gox is anything but honest about having enough Bitcoins to cover the deposits of each user, but the only thing stopping them from cheating is their own honesty and business reputation. The only reason Bitcoin would be less likely to fall to fractional-reserve problems is that the Bitcoin software reduces the need for 2 out of the 3 reasons for having a bank: 1. To protect one's money from theft. (Bitcoin can be encrypted and backed up on your own) 2. To act as a clearinghouse for transactions, bill payment, etc (Bitcoin software handles this well, it's not instant, but that doesn't matter for most transactions) 3. To act as a middleman between people who want to lend their money out for interest, and people who wish to borrow money at interest (Bitcoin does not address this) |
|
|
|
The supporters of Bitcoin would say centralization is to blame, since it allows the manipulation of the monetary system in favor of the wealthy. However, since most gold monetary systems were also centralized, how could centralization explain fiat monetary systems, especially debt-based ones? Clearly, centralization is not enough to explain our current monetary system.
First, what do you mean that 'mos gold monetary systems were also centralized' ? Are you talking about gold and silver certificates which were then later not redeemable in gold and silver? Centralization was a necessary step to wean the public off of gold and silver money and move to a more centralized system of purely fiat money. (It's also not just a matter of centralization, it's how much power over the money supply the centralized authority has.) It was an extremely gradual process from the gold standard of the 1800s, to the increasing use of gold certificates, to the introduction of Federal Reserve Notes, to the confiscation of privately held gold in 1933 (but dollars were still redeemable in gold by foreign governments), to the removal of silver from the coinage in 1965, to the point where dollars were no longer redeemable for gold in any way in 1971. Each step gave more power to the Fed to create money at will. Basically, I'm not sure what your question is. Centralization was necessary for the government/Fed to get more power to create money - why do you think this says anything about the merits of a gold standard? |
|
|
|
I have imported coins into both Mt Gox and StrongCoin. I just did not make a video of it. Do you really need to see my ugly mug peeling off a sticker and then typing at a computer? It is that simple. You just peal off the sticker and then type in the number you find under the sticker into either of those two accounts.
It would be useful to see this video so people can know what a sticker looks like when it has been peeled off, so we can better determine if a coin is still valid or not. |
|
|
|
|
Any new digital currency is going to be worth right next to zero at the beginning. And therefore anyone who invests real money on a new highly speculative currency is going to make a lot of money if it succeeds.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Moonshadow.
I mistyped my last sentence - I meant to say "A transaction with a lower transaction fee will never have a higher priority than a transaction with a higher transaction fee."
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
