For anyone over 40 I have no advice
I suspect no-one over 40 would want the advice of anyone who regularly expresses such certainty in their opinions or has such a skewed view of the world.  |
|
|
|
...
For anyone over 40 I have no advice, because they don't matter any more - their contribution to how the future will look has ended or is close to ending.
Beautiful troll; quite effective. Lots of us old codgers around I suppose. You may or may not have notice who seems to be running the show in most countries. It is said that "Old age and treachery beats youth and skill every time." Indeed. It's not trolling though; its just the arrogance of youth, Texan style. |
|
|
|
Hehe, good ol' wall thread. Always lighting the rockets and posting the trains right /before / it'll be clear if we should light the rockets / post the train pics  Although, the entirely expected absence of a certain brony troll is definitely an improvement  "brony"? Oh God, I wish I hadn't asked.  |
|
|
|
Hehe, good ol' wall thread. Always lighting the rockets and posting the trains right /before / it'll be clear if we should light the rockets / post the train pics Although, the entirely expected absence of a certain brony troll is definitely an improvement "brony"? |
|
|
|
guess OP is dead or arrested.
Was him the guy from SR2?
Not just SR2 but both SilkRoads and not arrested but busy building SR3. LOL: post of the day. |
|
|
|
|
This thread is soooo shit these days; I "read" a page and its mainly "this user is ignored" (with at least four being "LambChop" -- the harbinger of death for all forums), the remainder being enthusiastic noobs and cultists.
Slim pickings: thank God for Jorge and his provocations.
I miss KeyserSoze, bring back Keyser....and OldGeek and all those who could actually post something without being arrogant/dismissive or accusing everyone else of being a troll/shitforbrains.
|
|
|
|
its not better technology that will replace bitcoin its better propaganda and consumer confidence keepers, some improvment i can see implemented in SC adjusting the fixed supply to a constant 3% economic growth stimulates (because economists think moderate monetary growth is good) increasing the tx fees, we need more miners for security, and teh proponents saying you the people, listen up, we have embraced bitcoin's blockchain technology its been improved and is safe for consumer adoption, were moving our national currency into the blockchain.
and in the blink of an eye Bitcoins tiny billion dollar market cap is absorbed and assimilated and usurped. Replaced not by better tech but by confidence spinning.
snip....cultist droning...snip Yeah, yeah..."come the revolution". Always a day awaaay. |
|
|
|
Bitches think I'm a perma-bear, but they don't know that long term (and I mean looooong term, I am open to BTC bullishness, but not now and not at current prices): UBS CIO, fuckers: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/10/27/ubs-cio-blockchain-technology-can-massively-simplify-banking/“I believe – and this is my personal view – that blockchain technology will not only change the way we do payments but it will change the whole trading and settlement topic,” said Mr. Bussmann.
He believes that blockchain technology has potential to trigger “massive” simplification of banking processes and cost structure.
He said: “When somebody with a strong brand and security level establishes it as a reliable service, then the whole industry will follow. That is my personal prediction.”Remember mofos, No Bitcoin -> No incentive to maintain the network -> No blockchain  And now back to being a bear. Time to crash again, bitcoin They don't get it  <sigh> I've had this discussion on another thread. Please read: Bitcoin: It’s the platform, not the currency, stupid!http://thenextweb.com/insider/2014/02/15/bitcoin-platform-currency/1/Which nailed it back in February. Then realise this has happened before with radio, telecoms, the internet and other technology as Tim Wu's "The Master Switch" eloquently describes: the hegemony will strip "bitcoin" of all the useful components (eg blockchain technology) it needs to continue its control. They get it...and they'll take it. |
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me why this is a 'meme' and by inference of the comments above untrue; I have always thought "its the technology, not the currency" is pretty much on the nose as a precis for BTC. It's been around for some time now.
Or is this just the cool internet kids thinking that anyone in finance couldn't possibly 'understand' and therefore this must simply be parroted.
Please ... you really do not understand why bitcoin needs to be valuable for a decentralised blockchain to function? It's just clueless idiots that are saying this, amazingly they seem to be able to get repeated without critique. Thanks to those who responded. As for this gem (above) -- I'm stunned but not surprised. Everyone else except you is "clueless"; quelle surprise. Since others seem to have pointed out the massive blind spot in your thinking I won't reiterate. For those a little more flexible I suggest: Bitcoin: It’s the platform, not the currency, stupid!
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2014/02/15/bitcoin-platform-currency/1/Which nailed it back in February. And of course, all this has happened before with radio, telecoms, the internet and other technology as Tim Wu's "The Master Switch" eloquently describes: the hegemony will strip "bitcoin" of all the useful components it needs to continue its control and leave the libertarians tilting at windmills. |
|
|
|
It's a little insane how willing people are to make statements of certainty without understanding what they're talking about. I often wonder whether people prone to that are knowingly speaking without a full understanding, or if they're just too stupid to know that they don't know something. Absolutely, the speed with wich this meme is spreading shows how few people of the top tier of society are able to think for themselves. Pretty scary. Can someone explain to me why this is a 'meme' and by inference of the comments above untrue; I have always thought "its the technology, not the currency" is pretty much on the nose as a precis for BTC. It's been around for some time now. Or is this just the cool internet kids thinking that anyone in finance couldn't possibly 'understand' and therefore this must simply be parroted. |
|
|
|
What about growth in existing markets?
If we look at previous bubbles, after a month or two of roughly exponential growth, and another month or so of oscillations, the price usually settled down to a nearly constant value. I take that as a sign that the markets responsible for those bubbles were saturated and stopped growing. Maybe they started to grow again this year, but I have not seen any real evidence of that. (Neither the number of stores that "acecpt bitcoin", nor the blockchain traffic, nor the venture capital investments imply growth of any market.) All the charts on blockchain show very steady growth, transactional volume is up 300% since this time last year. Number of transactions is all time high, as is daily wallets used The problem with these numbers is there is no way to tell if they are 'unique'; as I'm sure Jorge will comment, much of this transactional volume could be down to a small number of users moving a large number of coins between wallets, either for genuine reasons or to deliberately inflate the transactional 'health' of BTC. I personally thought we had turned a corner a few weeks back but the demand for BTC is clearly not there; given the disparity between the price and the transaction volume, Jorge's hypothesis that these numbers are at best misleading, at worst fabricated does appear justified. |
|
|
|
It's amazing how many people who genuinely believe Bitcoin is dead don't have anything better to do with their time than to post on the forum of a dying, failed idea.
If I wasn't so sure that nobody has a reason to lie on the Internet, I might start to question their motives.
It's very simple: SchadenfreudeI suspect it tastes particularly sweet when the subjects are arrogant know-it-alls. Every cloud...etc, etc |
|
|
|
Cryptocurrencies are meant to allow payments that governments (and banks, which can be conflated with them) cannot see, block, divert, or undo.
In your mind maybe. You don't get to speak for any cryptocurrency developers. We can speak for ourselves thanks. That is not explicit in Satoshi's paper, but seems to have been a basic assumption by most of the crypto fans, especially the most ardent ones. (Reducing credit card fees is not something that would get people that excited about, is it?).
Most cryptocoins seem to be designed and supported with that goal in mind. Some bitcoiners are even adopting other coins because they do not see bitcoin as sufficiently robust in that regard. Few coins, if any (Ripple perhaps? I don't know about it) are designed to allow the same level of control that governments now have on bank transfers.
Bitcoiners are a broad church and you, especially you, don't get to speak for all of us. Stop trying to paint Bitcoin as a political tool invented by political extremists. YOU are the bloody extremist here, prof. Bitcoin is a technology. Like Bittorrent. Like the Internet. Like electricity. Like guns. Like fire. Some people use it to make things; others to break and/or take things. Some people just sit at the sidelines hurling abuse and shouting "heresy" right up to the point where they're drowned out by the sound of change inexorably passing them by. You're not a skeptic; you're an intellectually dishonest, disingenuous shit-slinger with absolutely nothing worthwhile to contribute to this conversation. BTW, been meaning to tell you something... You rock.  Yeah...rocking: I always think you've won an argument when you're the first to ignore the points made and start calling people names instead....almost Platonic. |
|
|
|
Can't decide whether to take a nap. How important are the next 24 hours? Serious responses only, please.
Without the next 24 hours, Tuesday would be severely compromised, and Wednesday may have to be rushed into service before it is fully tested and debugged. I don't know how much you care about the orderly passage of time, but that seems pretty serious to me. Well, sorry, but it looks like no one has a serious response to offer...I LOL'ed Me too. But I'm wondering, will we actually notice any difference between Wally napping and not-napping? |
|
|
|
Would love to Knnow who's turning the wheels of this madnes.
So anyway.. Seen heaps of movies about stock brokers and crooks. Are there any decent movies or doccos about traders? Or is that too boring for a movie .. Lol market manipulators must be the most mysterious individuals on earth, even hackers and magicians get more media exposure.
er...Google George Soros, that should keep you busy with real "source material" Soros is most famous for his single-day gain of US$1 billion on September 16, 1992, which he made by short selling the British pound. At the time, England was part of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, a fixed exchange-rate system which included other European countries. The other countries were pressuring England to devalue its currency in relation to the other countries in the system or to leave the system. England resisted the devaluation, but with continued pressure from the fixed system and speculators in the currency market, England floated its currency and the value of the pound suffered.
By leveraging the value of his fund, Soros was able to take a $10 billion short position on the pound, which earned him US$1 billion. This trade is considered one of the greatest trades of all time.
|
|
|
|
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.
Currently, transaction fees are negligible (~13 BTC total per day; on average, less than 0.08 USD per transaction, or less than 0.01% of the BTC volume excluding change-backs). For many kinds of non-payment transactions (tumbling, moving between hot and cold wallets, depositing and withdrawing from exchanges and other "bitcoin banks", over-the counter bitcoin purchases, etc.) those fees are not a deterrent. And fees are not yet mandatory, is that correct? Moreover, there are many people (such as fund employees) with motivation to generate "fake" traffic in order to give the impression of usage. My guess is that payments for goods and services are no more than 5% of the blockchain transaction volume. The justification is that the latter does not vary with BTC price as one would expect. If that is the case, then one cannot use the traffic as a measure of adoption, even with a 0.05 weight, because the proportion of payment to non-payment traffic may vary a lot. I'll concede the uselessness of Metcalfe's Law as a predictor, that is for academic discussion. I don't believe Metcalfe's Law even applies to Bitcoin, because it is not a network. It doesn't need a lot of nodes, only a lot of decentralized miners. You call yourself an academic, yet you do nothing but criticize and offer nothing constructive. Your criticisms are weak and add little to the discussion. If you can't contribute something constructive, then you aren't putting in much effort and are resting on your laurels. The whole basis of science and the scientific community is to question and criticise; the idea that someone who criticises a hypothesis has to produce a contrary, better or "constructive" (a highly subjective term in itself) thesis is incorrect. You've clearly never gone through peer-review but I imagine you'd find the process pretty harrowing given statements like the one above. |
|
|
|
+1 Except this one seems to have got quite a few bulls too (if you know what I mean). |
|
|
|
One question:
If self-regulation in Bittopia works, how come all the evidence suggests it has failed miserably thus far?
Define success, define failure. Compare to the regulated world. (Hint: I'd suggest the price might suggest the Bittopia is quite far from failure so far) If you want government regulated currencies, there's plenty of them out there and they're printing more and more each day. If you keep with it long enough, you'll probably get enough to build a fort I fail to see why is the onus on me to define success and failure? But (hint) I don't measure everything as 'price'. What has unfurled thus far has happened, it is undeniable. So, a laissez-faire approach has (as it always does) allowed scammers, crooks and incompetents to flourish because 'good men' were distracted by greed or overwhelmed by cowardice. Your argument seems to be that regulated markets are corrupt, therefore regulations are bad, it's such a 'strawman' as to be flammable. As I said in my post above 'charity begins at home, justice begins next door' -- you want an unregulated system, as long as it doesn't bite you on the arse. You complain about regulations but you had the chance to make your own but were too lazy/scared/complacent to make things happen. You remind me of a story my husband tells: in the UK he would go on demos in the 80's. He'd crawl from some mellee, covered in blood (his own or someone else's) and be buttonholed by some idiot selling Socialist-worker, "Comrade, have you heard about the oppressive state machine?". So, what will you do when the regulated BTC market eventuates, sell? No, you'll just have a good old moan. Yeah, that's always the best plan for mass change, "go it alone and overthrow the government".
Tit  Coward...........? |
|
|
|
If self-regulation in Bittopia works, how come all the evidence suggests it has failed miserably thus far?
Not that I agree with the premise, but what makes you think it couldn't succeed given time to adapt and build? Or does success have a time frame? Gox put the project back significantly, indeed we are still picking through the rubble. How many more such 'adaption events' do you think we would need? Would you prefer the 'patient' dead? For me, regulation has always been on the agenda for the Bitcoin and there was an opportunity (early days) to take control and self-regulate but it was squandered due to misplaced idealism. In the history of human evolution we have shown our need for rules and structure to survive and thrive; the idea that something as fundamental as 'money' could be left to an anarchic 'structure' was pretty naive. The BTC 'community' provided its own rope to hang itself with by allowing Shrem, Karpeles, Brewster etc etc to get any away with their schemes/incompetence; by the communities inaction/naivete they showed their inability to self-regulate and thus opened the door for external agencies to regulate instead. You are probably familiar with the phrase: "Charity begins at home" but probably less so with the second line... "justice begins next door" |
|
|
|
I believe in consumer protection.
Go play with some fiat. Bitcoin is for adults, not children. Would you want to go to a doctor that doesn't have a license that is overseen by a board that makes sure he/she is qualified to treat you? Or would you be okay with dying knowing that eventually the free market will get rid of that doctor....and either another unfit doctor will take his place (and will be replaced once negilance occurs by the free market) or maybe you will get a good doctor to take their place? Or maybe it doesn't matter since you'd be dead anyways right?
So glad Harold Shipman turned out to be a fraud and not a fully licensed doctor. I was worried for a bit there. If there was complete deregulation there would be Shipmans on every street corner -- in Victorian England there were. Hardly a credible argument. One question: If self-regulation in Bittopia works, how come all the evidence suggests it has failed miserably thus far? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
