|
Sorry this should be in marketplace.
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know if I can do automatic trading on Cryptsy.com like with Coinbase?
Example I want to set a limit buy or sell order?
Or say "use all BTC in my account to purchase altcoin every week". Etc.
Anyone?
|
|
|
|
I love bits. Clean and simple.
I hate that there are 1 million bits in a Bitcoin. That makes no sense.
A bit should be the lowest possible value. So there are 100 million bits in a Bitcoin.
Get rid of a Satoshi...it served its purpose but we need to move forward if Bitcoin is to go mainstream.
Then...we just need something that would represent 100 bits that is as clean and simple as bits and Bitcoin.
Something like:
1 BTC = 1million bites = 100million bits
The rational is allowing Bitcoin to operate on most financial software without too much fixing. They almost assume a decimal with two places for currency. Satoshis are the cents or after the decimal. 100 satoshi in a whole unit they call "bit" I wish the 'bit = micro' proponents would stop conflating the arguments about 2 decimal places and the 'bit' name Noone is arguing that two decimal places is a reasonable idea. The argument is about what to call a microbitcoin, and that calling it a 'bit' is confusing everyone. Call it a micro and be done with it. On a side note, you can't have bits be the smallest unit and then call a larger unit a microbit. People would have to say "microbitcoin" every time. I guess they could say "micro", but that doesn't go with the bits/bitcoin naming scheme. 100,000,000 bits = 1,000,000 X = 1 BTCSolve X and you've solved the problem |
|
|
|
I love bits. Clean and simple.
I hate that there are 1 million bits in a Bitcoin. That makes no sense.
A bit should be the lowest possible value. So there are 100 million bits in a Bitcoin.
Get rid of a Satoshi...it served its purpose but we need to move forward if Bitcoin is to go mainstream.
Then...we just need something that would represent 100 bits that is as clean and simple as bits and Bitcoin.
Something like:
1 BTC = 1million bites = 100million bits
The rational is allowing Bitcoin to operate on most financial software without too much fixing. They almost assume a decimal with two places for currency. Satoshis are the cents or after the decimal. 100 satoshi in a whole unit they call "bit" I wish the 'bit = micro' proponents would stop conflating the arguments about 2 decimal places and the 'bit' name Noone is arguing that two decimal places is a reasonable idea. The argument is about what to call a microbitcoin, and that calling it a 'bit' is confusing everyone. Call it a micro and be done with it. EX-fucking-ACTLY! Verly eloquently put. A bit MUST be the smallest unit of a Bitcoin, it just makes sense. There are 100 million bits in a bitcoin. Now that that is out of the way...we need to call 100 bits something so we can satisfy the 2 decimal place conundrum. 100 bits = "X" Whoever comes up with a simple name for "X" that follows the bits, Bitcoin naming scheme will have solved the conundrum and this thing can finally be put to rest once and for all! But to claim that there are 100 satoshis in a bit...this is legacy stuff...we have to move on! |
|
|
|
|
I love bits. Clean and simple.
I hate that there are 1 million bits in a Bitcoin. That makes no sense.
A bit should be the lowest possible value. So there are 100 million bits in a Bitcoin.
Get rid of a Satoshi...it served its purpose but we need to move forward if Bitcoin is to go mainstream.
Then...we just need something that would represent 100 bits that is as clean and simple as bits and Bitcoin.
Something like:
1 BTC = 1million bites = 100million bits
|
|
|
|
|
I think the fall of mount Gox caused a lot of investors to think twice about leaving large amounts of Bitcoin in online exchanges. So most (including myself) took the majority of their Bitcoins out of the exchange that they were in, and places them in a hot wallet or cold storage.
Therefore, there is less access to quick trading, and investors are holding off and waiting more than trading.
Also, I'm sure a lot of traders have limit buy orders in the low 400s and high 300s. So that price is hovering in the mid 400 range, and as it dips down it triggers these low 400 buy orders that keeps the price propped up.
|
|
|
|
On May 9th 2014, Brock Pierce was elected to the Bitcoin Foundation Board of Directors. His election has sparked outrage by some in the Bitcoin community. We caught up with Mr. Pierce on the day election results were made public at an event celebrating Sean's Outpost. Here is his response to the controversy: http://youtu.be/SHQuJR80mUYBitcoin tip address: 1NE3iCRoUYbknyZYWWbaDhVAi2D3AyDvEi A) why the outrage over Brock? B) who gives a shit about the foundation? C) WHY IS IT SO HARD TO FIGURE OUT IF THE Ios KEYBOARD IS ON CAPS LOCK OR NOT? |
|
|
|
|
I agree with OP. We need something like a split.
|
|
|
|
The volume of bitcoin has been dropping faster then the price in bitcoin.
In my opinion this means an increasing lack of interest in bitcoin, and it might be that the price will follow.
What do you guys think?
I think you are probably right. 2013 was the year of Bitcoin. But 2014 has been very quite. My hope is that as the infrastructure builds this year, eventually Ina year or two things will turn around as the next generation adopts Bitcoin at an alarming rate. Then...the older folks will have no choice but to learn how to use it. I think this is a long term goal. Right now, we are in a lull. |
|
|
|
|
Ok...so the people have spoken. Most people like bits better than mBTC and uBTC which is way too nerdy.
HOW DO WE VOTE THIS INTO IMPLEMENTATION?
Perhaps we could start a big BTC fund, and when it gets to a certain point we pay off the major wallet and exchanges to implement bits. Eventually it will reach critical mass and will grow organically.
|
|
|
|
21 million bitcoins FOREVER!Satoshi recognized that 21 million currency units are not enough for a global currency. His solution was to support eight decimal places on amounts, which also allows the reward halving process to continue for about 140 years. Internally the Bitcoin software recognizes 2,100 million million currency units (now known as satoshis) but they are divided by 100 million before presentation to users. So the block reward is currently 2,500 million satoshis or 25 bitcoins. Bitcoin units were fine for the first few years, but during the last 12 months the question keeps arising "Is another unit best for common usage?" Inertia of existing systemsAll modern fiat currencies have a major currency unit which has 100 minor units: e.g. $1 = 100 cents. Everyone is used to this system from childhood. Many people are not comfortable with scientific notation or with small decimals such as 0.001234 which will be seen more and more often as the unit value of 1 bitcoin rises. Most people are happier dealing with 100,000 than 0.00001 Further, 99.99% of the world's financial and accounting systems do not support more than 2 decimal places on currencies, let alone as many as eight. It is arguable that Bitcoin has a very real handicap upon its growth by disregarding modern conventions in currencies. Enter the "bit"1 bitcoin = 1,000,000 bits
1 bit = 100 satoshisUser 101111 on reddit recommended this mock-up wallet. The current Bitcoin Core wallet does allow the selection of millibitcoins and microbitcoins but not with such a user friendly presentation, and not by default. Is it time to consider using "bits" as standard? All balances become 1 million times larger, the block reward as 25 million bits, the exchange rate as 0.04 cents to a bit, a cup of coffee as 7000 bits instead of 0.007 BTC Is this an improvement? If the bitcoin value increases into the thousands of dollars which unit is easiest to use for pricing goods and services?  Why can't 1 bit = 1 Satoshi? |
|
|
|
Assuming that the payouts remain fairly constant over the next few years
It won't. With difficulty increases your payouts will drop 15-20% every 2 weeks. Just like CEX the only way to make profit off these shares is through day trading. They lose value fast and currently are not even close to a rate at which holding would be profitable. According to Crypstsy, the original principal will be made back through dividends in a year or less. That's 100% ROI in a year. Stocks don't have anything even close to that type of ROI. The difference, like you said is that these will eventually depreciate in value. Which is why there needs to be diversification. At set intervals, reinvest some of the dividend payouts into newer vehicles. MN3, MN4 eventually when they come out. Also...these shares have gone down from .180 to .100 back up to roughly .150. That means as of today, I've lost .030BTC off the principal, or about 16%. According to my very rough calculations, I'll make up that 16% loss in 7-8 weeks if it stays at that price, and will be even despite the loss to principal. I actually think there is some long term money to be made here without day trading. I'm just trying to wrap my head around it. |
|
|
|
|
This is a question for the serious investor/mathematicians out there. One of my favorite forms of investing is dividend reinvestment and long term exponential growth. Cryptsy has been offering Bitcoin mining shares that pay daily "dividends" and can be traded like stock. You can also now buy partial shares, so that the dividend earnings can be reinvested on a weekly or monthly basis.
For the sake of argument, lets take the biggest risk out of the equation. Let's assume Cryptsy is not going anywhere, and that the money you invest will not be "Mt Goxxed."
Let's also assume that while the original principal investment will fluctuate, it will remain fairly constant and will not go down to $0.00. Obviously, this could happen, but for the sake of argument let's assume your original principal is moderately safe.
Now, I bought one share of MN2 at .180BTC
My average daily dividend is currently .00051724BTC
Weekly that comes out to .00362068BTC
This equals a roughly 2.011% return each week on the principal
Assuming that the payouts remain fairly constant over the next few years, if I were to reinvest the dividends on a weekly basis by buying fractions of shares...how long would it take to see some reasonable exponential growth? A few years?
Obviously there are a lot of "what ifs," including increase in hash rates (and thus decrease in payouts), transaction fees, etc. But I'm playing around with the numbers because something like this could be a good addition to someone's investment portfolio. Obviously we are in early days, but it is interesting stuff.
|
|
|
|
I bought 4 MN2 contracts at 0.18 each, thinking to sell them after the IPO around 0.19 , but the price went down the drains and right now it is around 0.127 , I don't know why this went down so hard , MN1 didn't behave this way.
Yes. It sucks. I bought one at .18. I wouldn't panic sell. I'd hold it because the price has been steadily going up. The dividend payouts started good and now are not great. Wait and see, If the next few dividend payouts go back to their higher level, I think the share price will rebound. That said, I'll probably dump it at a break even price if that becomes possible. These dividend payouts can easily be wiped out if the price drops. Especially if they release MN3 in a few weeks. Is is a good idea in theory but was poorly executed. |
|
|
|
So MN2 shares are now out, at 0.18, can we assume this caused the MN1 contracts to lose value?
This had a significant amount to do with it. After all, to balance that value, the values of the MN1 contracts have to go down. Cogently, a new contract doesn't directly affect the price of the older contracts, but there is a severe psychological impact that causes the overall market to react. I do expect the price MN1 to bump up a bit (maybe to .195ish) when MN2 initial sales are completed (and their price bumps up also). I bought one share of MN2. I like the idea of these contracts. It is almost akin to buying a stock and getting dividend payouts. It isn't a lot, but it can add up over time, and if the price is stable it can offset any losses. The only real problem is that when the hashing power goes up...the "dividend" payouts should exponentially decrease. So a "lifetime" contract is pretty meaningless if you think about it. Then again...if I get 33 cents a share per day, that may not sound like a lot...but my AAPL shares only pay $3.21 per share PER QUARTER! The risk is much higher in Bitcoin, as cryptsy could dissolve tomorrow and I'd be shit out of luck...but I think this "mining contract" concept is really great. I can't way to see it more refined. I understand that the MN1 and MN2 values could go down, but what variables factor into the daily payouts? I'm concerned that the daily payout could be much smaller. Right now it's unbelievable - sometimes .2-.3% / day. Will the daily payouts fluctuate, or inevitably go down? They will inevitably go down. It says that on Cryptsy. |
|
|
|
Simple... Do you seriously think that the real Satoshi would use his real name? (as Dorian mentioned in the video himself)
This is not a good argument, and I keep hearing it over and over again. Don't you think it is possible that when he created Bitcoin, he NEVER expected it to be a world wide phenomenon. Hindsight is 20-20. So it is possible, that Dorian looks back in that as a huge mistake. Sure it's a good argument. Your counter argument is plausible. However, Satoshi was careful never to reveal anything personal and probably encrypted all his communications behind Tor (although I cannot find a reference to offer proof of that). But look, Satoshi was VERY forward thinking. It wasn't just that he created a breakthrough idea with Bitcoin. There are many technical aspects of Bitcoin that solve both security and economic issues before they ever became problems. It is a bit mind-boggling. Satoshi is just not a 20-20 hindsight guy. Farthest thing from it, and such a remarkable mind would be almost certainly wise enough to remain anonymous. Good point. |
|
|
|
Simple... Do you seriously think that the real Satoshi would use his real name? (as Dorian mentioned in the video himself)
This is not a good argument, and I keep hearing it over and over again. Don't you think it is possible that when he created Bitcoin, he NEVER expected it to be a world wide phenomenon. Hindsight is 20-20. So it is possible, that Dorian looks back in that as a huge mistake. Also...it is possible that Dorian was not the sole creator, but had a hand in the project. Therefor someone else used his name. I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying this...but I still think Dorian is Satoshi Nakamoto or had a hand in Bitcoins creation! I haven't heard any good evidence to the contrary. It is possible that he is playing a "dumbed down" character, and using weasel words to "non-lie" while not being forthright. It is also possible that I am wrong and he is an innocent bystandard. But Leah shouldn't be thrown under the bus and beaten up as badly as she has been, because if she was right...then she pulled off an amazing piece of journalistic investigating. That said...I agree that if he isn't SM than Leah put him at great risk and did something completely unethical! |
|
|
|
Hey OP, how do we know that you're not Satoshi Nakamoto? If someone writes a random ass newsweek article saying it's true, does that make it true?
How do we know you're not actually Satoshi posing as a random bitcoiner for your own amusement?
I hereby postulate... Drbitcoin is the real Satoshi nakamoto.
Well for starters, I'm not a brilliant software programmer with a mathematics background who worked on secret government programs whose legal name is Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto. So while Dorian May or may not be Satoshi Nakamoto...I can assure you that anyone who looked into my past would immediately eliminate me because I don't have a single one of these qualities while Dorian has quite a few. Doesn't mean he is Satoshi...but it's plausible that he could be. |
|
|
|
maybe the same way we know that barack obama, whether you like him or not, was born in the united states.
Really? I've been on the intranets for A LONG time. I am NOT old by any stretch of the term, but I am old enough to predate the internet. That said...this will be my VERY FIRST TIME using a word that I am usually opposed to because of its radically reductive nature. Here goes...you sir...are a... TROLL! I feel dirty... |
|
|
|
|
First off...I don't think it is that important to figure out who Satoshi Nakamoto is. That said, I heard Andreas Antonopoulos on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast the other day, and he was 100% positive that Dorian is not Satoshi Nakamoto. (Great podcast by the way, anyone into Bitcoin should really download and listen to the whole episode).
Anyways...my question is...how is Andreas SO POSITIVE that Dorian is not Satoshi Nakamoto? Andreas met Dorian the other day to give him the Bitcoins he fundraised for him, and said that he had to help Dorian setup his internet connection. This, along with his speech pattern was evidence enough for Andreas to state unequivocally that Dorain is not Satoshi Nakamoto!
But, what if Dorian is just so brilliant, that he is acting in public as a more "dumbed down" version of himself? That wouldn't be so hard to do, especially for someone so brilliant to have created Bitcoin.
I've also heard the evidence where he stated "if I wanted to be anonymous, why would I have used my real name?" Well...maybe he created Bitcoin, and just never thought it would become so popular, and in hindsight wishes he DIDNT use his real name?
I would LOVE a response from Andreas Antonopoulos to this post! Because the truth is...if Leah from Newsweek was right about Dorian being Satoshi Nakamoto, than people like Andreas are beating up on her pretty badly for actually doing a pretty amazing job uncovering a mystery. I agree her evidence was circumstantial at best, and I agree that outing Dorian may not have been ethical (especially if he isn't Satoshi!). But I have yet to hear a good piece of evidence to the contrary either!
Andreas...if you read this post...can you please clarify the comments you made the other day on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast? You unequivocally stated that Dorain is not Satoshi Nakamoto...but the evidence you gave was as circumstantial as the evidence Leah gave. Can you please clarify, this is bugging me. Thanks!! You are awesome btw.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
