What is the amount of btc you would like to spend on it?
I got some
It all depends on the condition and history. Could you PM photos along with condition and history for what you have for sale? |
|
|
|
What is the cheapest thing you have for sale, just out of curiosity?
I do have 10 7x Original Casascius 5btc blanks that were going to go on Ebay at £50 each. They are still in the blue tape Mike wrapped them in. I also have 10x Gold-plate commemorative coins (including capsules) - £60/lot, + 8x Copper commemorative coins £50/lot. Including standard postage. Im not interested in splitting these into smaller lots. Sorry. Above coins are in pics. Tell me more about the blanks. Do you have photos of them by themselves? How much do you want for each lot? |
|
|
|
|
Prefer loaded, one owner. If not, let me know what you have anyway.
PM me.
|
|
|
|
The most basic reason why Bitcoin cannot and will not persist long term is that it requires large processing power as well as storage capacity but offers a tiny number of transactions per second at 7. The exponential nature of technology doesn't concern me when it comes to the processing power and storage requirements. What concerns me is how little it delivers for so much consumption. Meanwhile NXT which is an early 2.0 is over there featuring 100tps right now and eyeing 1000tps. SPV nodes don't really offset this either.
I wrote a whitepaper back in May describing a simple solution to this problem that also has the advantage of providing instant acceptance of transactions. One nomadic mint agent creates the new blocks on a non-branching blockchain. Peers verify the result and copy new blocks to their own copies of the canonical blockchain. A single writer to the immutable blockchain should be very fast. Full nodes share the block rewards without proof-of-work mining effort. Fewer than one hundred lines of code are modified in Bitcoin Core, provided that suitable software agents operate the distributed network. All core devs I speak to are skeptical, but some encourage my project anyway to see if there is a better way than Satoshi's proof-of-work. Sounds interesting. Could I have a link to the whitepaper? |
|
|
|
I also believe that the biggest problem will be Apple loading off the fees on the credit cards company. They can't do this with Bitcoin. CC-companies will be gladly paying their share if they can be part of that potential revolution. Who will pay that for Bitcoin? Maybe Satoshi? The Foundation?  NFC bitcoin payment applications from mobile devices will likely be paid for, directly or indirectly, by the merchant. Even considering the cost of currency exchange, BitPay, for example, is less expensive for merchants than say Visa. Once a tipping point is reached after which merchants prefer to retain bitcoin revenue to pay some of their own expenses with bitcoin, then exchange to fiat is not required. That tipping point cannot be reached without government backing of the currency. Great economic crashes come from regular people speculating. For this tipping point you mention to occur without government backing would require many normal people to become speculators. By many I mean almost everyone and this is not possible. Bitcoin cannot be government backed because it is proof of concept and it is great at it. This said, crypo-currencies without a doubt will do to money what money did to land and titles. Bitcoin isn't the biggest player in this revolution, it is just the biggest player in the evolution. |
|
|
|
Apple adopting Bitcoin isn't even remotely likely. Simply put, it is impossible that Apple will adopt Bitcoin.
The term adoption when used in relation to Bitcoin is consistently misused. When merchants use a service that accepts Bitcoin from holders and converts it into fiat for themselves, they are not adopting Bitcoin. They are exploiting the popularity of the term and converting BTC into fiat. This is not a case of merchants helping Bitcoin but a case of Bitcoin helping merchants. Equally, overall fiat conversion into Bitcoin isn't increasing but decreasing.
Bitcoin is being stress tested and the question isn't which load will make it move faster but which push will make the load lighter. And I see no discussion regarding real Bitcoin development. NXT, Ethereum, Exocoin, NEM and maybe even to a certain degree Monero and Emunie are where development, not armchair discussions about development, is happening.
It is impossible to know which child will grow to be the greatest adult though even if we knew, we still would be left with a definition of great that may be incorrect.
Bitcoin has hit adulthood and is great but it is very limited. Trying to change the definition of 'great' only helps with making it impossible to call Bitcoin great without doing a single bit of work toward making it greater.
but by accepting bitcoin (even if they just sell it), they are advertising bitcoin, and increasing the utility. Even if the short term effect is a downward pressure (which is probably not as severe as many of you make believe), the medium to long term effect is a price boom. and in my opinion, bitcoin has barely even scratched the surface of childhood, it's not running, it's barely started standing up straight. There is zero evidence that "the medium to long term effect is a price boom". Care to provide some? Independently from what stage Bitcoin is, it definitely isn't standing nor is it straight. |
|
|
|
Apple adopting Bitcoin isn't even remotely likely. Simply put, it is impossible that Apple will adopt Bitcoin.
The term adoption when used in relation to Bitcoin is consistently misused. When merchants use a service that accepts Bitcoin from holders and converts it into fiat for themselves, they are not adopting Bitcoin. They are exploiting the popularity of the term and converting BTC into fiat. This is not a case of merchants helping Bitcoin but a case of Bitcoin helping merchants. Equally, overall fiat conversion into Bitcoin isn't increasing but decreasing.
Bitcoin is being stress tested and the question isn't which load will make it move faster but which push will make the load lighter. And I see no discussion regarding real Bitcoin development. NXT, Ethereum, Exocoin, NEM and maybe even to a certain degree Monero and Emunie are where development, not armchair discussions about development, is happening.
It is impossible to know which child will grow to be the greatest adult though even if we knew, we still would be left with a definition of great that may be incorrect.
Bitcoin has hit adulthood and is great but it is very limited. Trying to change the definition of 'great' only helps with making it impossible to call Bitcoin great without doing a single bit of work toward making it greater.
Actually I would say BitsharesX is probably better than any other competitor to bitcoin that you have listed there.. its got alot of things going for it and I think it would tag along with bitcoin for a while as bitcoin would be used as a currency and bitshares used for well, everything else including anything that shares are issued for (stocks, bonds, any assets(voting, music, dns)).. NXT tries to do the same thing but doesn't do it quite aswell.. and the other ones I dont think are even close (yet). I think the winner will be the ones that will complement bitcoin not replace it. The winner is never defined as the one who complements number 1. To be the winner a cryptocurrency has to necessarily replace Bitcoin. The most basic reason why Bitcoin cannot and will not persist long term is that it requires large processing power as well as storage capacity but offers a tiny number of transactions per second at 7. The exponential nature of technology doesn't concern me when it comes to the processing power and storage requirements. What concerns me is how little it delivers for so much consumption. Meanwhile NXT which is an early 2.0 is over there featuring 100tps right now and eyeing 1000tps. SPV nodes don't really offset this either. Another reason that comes to mind is the fact that satoshi and at least whoever has gox stolen coins holds hundreds of thousands of BTC. So much for not trusting FIAT and going to BTC because it is 'decentralized' as the useful idiots keep repeating. FIAT is magnitudes more decentralized than Bitcoin as it is currently distributed. I understand that Bitcoin could be changed to handle more but that increase will cause a proportional increase in processing power and storage requirements which means it will keep being really slow. |
|
|
|
|
Apple adopting Bitcoin isn't even remotely likely. Simply put, it is impossible that Apple will adopt Bitcoin.
The term adoption when used in relation to Bitcoin is consistently misused. When merchants use a service that accepts Bitcoin from holders and converts it into fiat for themselves, they are not adopting Bitcoin. They are exploiting the popularity of the term and converting BTC into fiat. This is not a case of merchants helping Bitcoin but a case of Bitcoin helping merchants. Equally, overall fiat conversion into Bitcoin isn't increasing but decreasing.
Bitcoin is being stress tested and the question isn't which load will make it move faster but which push will make the load lighter. And I see no discussion regarding real Bitcoin development. NXT, Ethereum, Exocoin, NEM and maybe even to a certain degree Monero and Emunie are where development, not armchair discussions about development, is happening.
It is impossible to know which child will grow to be the greatest adult though even if we knew, we still would be left with a definition of great that may be incorrect.
Bitcoin has hit adulthood and is great but it is very limited. Trying to change the definition of 'great' only helps with making it impossible to call Bitcoin great without doing a single bit of work toward making it greater.
|
|
|
|
|
rpietila, I am very surprised that you are not invested in NXT. Between the java platform, proof of stake done correctly and decentralized exchange it is definitely a value adding block chain.
The bigger the idle stake, the bigger your interest in keeping the system working and you can act upon this by simply holding on to your stake. With bitcoin, miners for example have a big say on the state of the system even if they hold no btc. In NXT, on the other hand, the only entities with a significant say in the state of the system are the ones holding actual stakes in the system.
|
|
|
|
|
[WTB] 20M NAS for 0.25 BTC
|
|
|
|
objectively we are in a b*** market.
To everyone who read this as "objectively we are in a BEAR market", that is not what wetroof is saying. This statement is a joke. Literally. b*** could be bull or it could be bear. Interesting to notice how everyone who has replied to this post this far has read it as bear though... ok, my bad. I get it. I'm still buying. Poor analysis of input is the source of much pain. That was hard to watch. |
|
|
|
I'm selling 1'366'334 NXT for 100 BTC. Anyone?
I should have added that it's the price with 10% discount to market price. Why are you selling so much?  It's all I have left. I'm going to fund a project but I recalled how easy my last donation was deanonymized. Now buying bitcoins, mixing and buying nxts back is the only reliable way to break links between accounts....Or you could have found fatal flaws and are abandoning ship... |
|
|
|
|
Buying 120,000NXT for $1000. Let's get this deal done.
|
|
|
|
How will the ZeroCoin project benefit from being implemented on top of Nxt? Let's build a compelling case for them to join forces.
This is a good question. We should always be asking what we can offer the other party to help them get what they want. I have heard that the ZeroCoin people were a little miffed that after they found a way to bring anonymity to Bitcoin, they realized that their solution would never see the light of day. The Bitcoin Devs are just too conservative with a $10 B market cap at stake...they can't afford any more screwups, so they are extra cautious. So maybe we can tell ZeroCoin that we are happy to help them implement their solution into our blockchain, and they can also proceed with their Bitcoin fork that implements ZeroCoin. This would show the practical versatility of their solution and give them academic bragging rights. At that point, Zerocoin would have been implemented in both a 100% PoW Bitcoin fork, and also implemented in the 100% PoS Nxt invention. "Our truly anonymous ZeroCoin protocol has not only launched its own currency, it's also been successfully implemented into Nxt, the first 2nd generation cryptocurrency." This would be huge news in the cryptocoin scene and would bring a lot of prestige to both Nxt and ZeroCoin. We should also offer them a respectable bounty and let them choose to take it in Nxt or BTC or some combination of the two. If they want BTC, then we can hold a sale on the forums like they did to raise money for the cryptographic audit. I think it would be a mistake to try to shove NXT down their throats if they prefer bitcoins instead. Great strategy! Let's do it. |
|
|
|
I just designed and 3d-printed a NXT-keychain  very nice |
|
|
|
Ouch, something strange happening on eMunie ship. Crew members are quitting, Dan again is crying like a girl in trollbox What's going on all of a sudden?!? Ethereum pushed back the IPO too.  Voodoo magic. BCNext cursed them all? oh wow. if both of our major competitors fail just think about how much capital we would absorb. Ethereum won't fall until long after the IPO if ever. Emunie is 50/50. All of it is very funny to me and very serious to NXT as we release the official client while they keep postponing their start. |
|
|
|
Totally rocks indeed. Nexern = high quality |
|
|
|
Yes, fiat currencies are backed by guns. We who invest in Bitcoin are risking our money in order to have a currency NOT backed by guns. We are only risking our money. Many, many others have risked and given their lives for the hope of freedom. You may be underestimating what a powerful force the love of freedom is. This may not be rational, but it is very very real. Bet against it at your peril.
One of the best posts I have read in the entire forum. |
|
|
|
We should stay with the plan of paying 230k nxt for this campaign and reserve the slots for the next months.
Keep in mind that Ethereum and emunie are on their way... nxt needs to be and stay in people's minds.
While long term etherium and emunie will probably get tangled in legal issues regarding their IPO's lack of formality, in the short term, they are coming out EXACTLY when NXT is vulnerable. Until April, we could actually have slightly less features than emunie. I know this is a tech oriented community, but I hope you can understand that sometimes it is prudent to substitute marketing/PR for a gap in tech. It is only a temporary thing and maybe it won't be a big deal, but what if people make emunie a giant success and take the thunder away from NXT? Is that a risk we should take when we don't have to? Marketing as DEFENSIVE weapon. Marketing to make people excited about NXT and wait until April to decide between NXT, emunie and etherium. By then, the lawyers might already be circling one or both of those, so it would be game over in favor of NXT. That is a nice outcome and well worth taking the chance with 10 million NXT that is inching closer and closer to the incinerator. It is like a use it or lose it vacation time. Let's use it. Now is the perfect time to use these funds. It will make all of our NXT worth that much more in the long run. That is what I want. Don't you? James Yes. Right after the official client is released. And you know what I mean by official. I mean the client the community deems to be the best and thus becomes labeled the official client because that is the parlance of our times. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
