I'm the joint.  Hi.


It's always ironic when someone makes a mistake at the same time they're calling others stupid, wouldn't you agree?


I joined this forum in 2011, sir.

Oh, that's much better.  Who are you?


That's a low standard for proof.


Have you dealt with Bitcoin?


Obviously.  Again, who are you?


Did you satisfy the concerns of your potential customers?  Obviously not.


And none of us want to be the first.


That's not very reassuring.  Sounds like you didn't learn your lesson the first two times, so why should we assume your security practices have changed with respect to your BTCtalk account?


Stemming from the last point, how can I even know that you're the rightful owner of that BTCtalk account?


You can refuse them, but I think you'll find that the community hasn't been uniquely inconsiderate to you.  Any new account demanding blind trust will get a similar response (I say "blind trust" because your outside feedback in no way constitutes proof of honesty).


Feedback can be bought on the cheap.


Unless, of course, you bought it.


You may be an impersonator.  I refer you back to your poor security practices.


If it's false, then that sucks, and it's unfortunate your reputation is being smeared unjustly.  I would recommend that you consider how to adapt to the ocean you swim in rather than trying to change the ocean itself.


I covered the Trendon Shavers ponzi story, which is transparent.  You send first (do you trust me now?).


Easily.  Actually, people sell outside feedback from this forum.


I must be a brainwashed idiot.


I remember a month or two ago someone on this forum was severely framed for openly stating he was looking to conduct micro-trades with the sole intention of building positive feedback.  I'm sure it wasn't the only time that's happened around here.


You may be trusted to those who know you.  We don't.  Again, who are you?


And that's why you care about the opinions of a select, cancerous few, right?


Scammers aren't banned here.  I can't speak for others, but I assume that I can think and be responsible for myself.  There's also an "ignore" button.


Yes, I agree some abuse the trust system, though what I consider abusive someone else may not.  It's also known that accounts are bought and sold here.  Again, I can think for myself.  All you're experiencing are the opinions of a few individuals who have independently decided that your proof of honesty is missing.


Clever.


Statements are often best expressed within paragraphs.


How many different people are you addressing?


That's clearly what happened.


Sike!


Einhorn and Finkle...Finkle and Einhorn.


Well, this was amusing.

Were you expecting a post like this to help?

Outside rep can be bought and proves nothing.

Tomatocage has prevented many scams from coming to fruition.  There are many others like him, but he's one of the best.  Bite the bullet and play by the decentralized rules of this evolving community and you can demonstrate over time that you can be trusted, perhaps to the point that you can demand up-front payment (as I do) without being labeled a scammer.  I've been doing successful deals on here since 2011 and I still find myself coming under the microscope.  And that's fine by me.  We police ourselves to a large extent, and it works.

 *Facepalm*

"Supposedly anonymous?"  C'mon, really?  I mean...REALLY?!

You don't fit into the category, then...


Also, the more people that get paychecks in BTC, the more demand and liquidity increase.

It would be disadvantageous not to join the wagon.  If most people get paid a certain way, that alone indicates that people would easily be able to spend their BTC.  Also, volatility smooths out as more people join, generally speaking.

My two cents:

1) As a general rule, a scammer will shift the focus away from himself and/or attack his detractors.  This usually happens unconsciously.

2) As a general rule, a non-scammer will be cooperative and do what is necessary to prove his innocence.

These rules are general, not universal.  Make your own judgment.  I've made mine.

Yes, they will.  The majority of people will want paychecks in BTC when they see many other people have paychecks in BTC.  Who will jump on board first?  The innovators, the risk-takers, and the wealthy, just like it's always been.

They will likely get to choose their ratio of BTC to fiat.  This is already possible with BitPay.

People will stick to fiat currency until people don't stick to it.  How many chicken-and-egg tests does BTC need to pass before people realize that these sort of problems have a natural way of working themselves out?  "But who will make the first transaction?" It happened.  "But what merchant will accept something hardly anyone uses?"  It happened.  "But who will buy BTC if hardly anyone accepts it?"  It happened.   It will happen again, and it will keep happening.

When paychecks are in BTC, it will be easy to sell goods for BTC.

The more time goes on without knowing who Satoshi is, the more I'm inclined to believe there is no single person who is Satoshi.

I disagree.  The corrupt will always explore the boundaries of principle to find any holes in the fence, but if there are fewer holes then the corrupt have no choice but to play by the rules.

For example, I don't see anyone inflating BTC all willy-nilly.  Do you?

Thinking realistically, I'm not sure what you expect.

This is one of many "chicken-and-egg" problems that BTC faces, and we've seen progress with respect to virtually all of them.  Other chicken-and-egg problems included the very first documented transaction (i.e. two pizzas for 10,000 BTC). merchant adoption prior to a solid user base, etc.  The chicken-and-egg problem you're describing is how to establish consensus of value of a distributed currency, and for that we need something to compare its value to (e.g. fiat currency).

You state, "It seems people are beginning to realize that their digital magic beans aren't going to usher in the blah blah blah."  I would say, "It seems some people haven't seriously considered the logistics of building a market around a new type of currency."

I think that if humanity had the wisdom to figure out how to build an economy for a decentralized currency without pegging it to fiat, we would have the wisdom to construct a functioning economy in the total absence of money, and we wouldn't need BTC.  The general idea behind BTC is to create a currency that essentially forces people to be fair and play nice.  Or, phrased another way, the idea is create a currency that prevents corruption and manipulation and/or makes such attempts transparent.

Bump.

I'm open to offers given the recent drop in price.

You don't go to the press section much, do you? 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=77.0

That's why I didn't associate your name with your quote.


The point is that it's a poor context in which to explain the state of the market.   It basically equates to "there's selling pressure because people aren't buying" and "mining is less profitable when it's less profitable."   Both of these statements are obvious, yet neither necessarily means anything about market health (i.e. whether it's a 'good' or 'bad' situation).  It's also like saying "selling pressure + non profitable mining is not a good situation in this very pivotal time which can be defined as a period of selling pressure + non-profitable mining."

A point I would concede is that non-profitable mining can lead to additional selling pressure if miners panic and race for the exit to salvage whatever ROI they think is left.


I don't agree with what you said inasmuch as I don't agree that "selling pressure + non-profitable mining" is the biggest problem facing Bitcoin.  I wouldn't, for example, draw the conclusion that "buying pressure + profitable mining" are Bitcoin's greatest advantages.  The rally to >$1100 met both of these criteria, but all it did was introduce intense market instability as a result of a gross mismatch of monetary input and output.  Price and personal performance are not in any way direct indicators of market health.


We all ride high horses.  I refer you to this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=923018.msg10142913#msg10142913

Regarding the emboldened passage, I'm not sure enough people really understand how possible this is.  And I say that to be realistic, not because I have a doom and gloom outlook. That realism has served as an invaluable counterpoint to my mid- to long-term bullishness.

We replace pessimism with narcissism.

 

Only to the extent that it would take longer to reach the next difficulty adjustment.  Yes, mining is tending towards centralization, but it's in no way centralized enough such that transactions would never confirm if the big miners called it quits.

I'm shocked by some of posts in this thread.

Let's look at a few examples:


Having a predictable supply of money is good.  Having the ability to inflate the money supply if necessary is also good.  Inflating the money supply irresponsibly is bad, but inflation itself needn't be.  


Lmao, what?  Dunce cap?


Not even close.  Inflation didn't stop the ridiculous rally to >$1,100, did it?


Mentioned above, the ability to inflate a currency when necessary is extremely beneficial.  Only irresponsible inflation is bad.


Hilariously stupid comment.


There's really nothing useful or informative about this assumption.  We already know that mining tends towards an equilibrium between difficulty and price.  Since we've been near equilibrium for some time now, we can expect the difficulty to drop if the price continues to drop (which it will, and it already has).

I'll stop there.   Those were just from the first page, and I didn't even make it all the way down.  Based on this, I'm almost just tempted to say people in general are too stupid to form their own economy, at least democratically.  Democracy --> mediocrity.