|
It just doesn't make any sense to want to spend bitcoins.
As far as I know Gresham's law is still a thing.
I'll be damned if you find me using BTC to buy coffees when I've got inflation plagued fiat in my bank account
|
|
|
|
Huobi on weekly  Volume is a joke  2M BTC |
|
|
|
So one token = one bitcoin?
100% reserve tokens. I said the tokens are bitcoins because effectively they are in value. It's like saying 100% reserve silver dollars are only dollars when they are physical. Yet it's much better than 100% reserve dollars which have clear trust & legal implications. I understand that, but as far as analogies go it's not bad. Maybe the most realistic way to introduce it so people don't fall for the hurr durrr permissioned chains nonsense. +1 I've long said sidechains will be Bitcoin's equivalent paper money |
|
|
|
So one token = one bitcoin?
100% reserve tokens. I said the tokens are bitcoins because effectively they are in value. It's like saying 100% reserve silver dollars are only dollars when they are physical. Yet it's much better than 100% reserve dollars which have clear trust & legal implications. |
|
|
|
The idea that 3600 coins are being dumped on the market daily is a myth.
3600 coins are created daily. demand absorbs them, otherwise price would fall. nothing mythical about it. Well to be clear the myth is that miners sell those coins on the market which would definitely affect the price. In reality it isn't so black and white and a considerable portion of coins are certainly held by these same miners. |
|
|
|
If 350-400$ was a low price back then what do you believe they consider 250 nowadays? A lesson?  Yes, I'm sure millionaires that have probably been mining since the double digits days are quite bothered by a price drop. .... or maybe not http://www.coindesk.com/bitfury-details-100-million-georgia-data-center/BitFury will invest $100m in building a 100MW bitcoin mining data centre in Georgia |
|
|
|
... can you read? "We believe in the long-term perspective [the price of bitcoin] will grow and we decided to not to sell [our bitcoin] at such a low price," Vavilov added. If 350-400$ was a low price back then what do you believe they consider 250 nowadays? Spare me with your trolling... |
|
|
|
Because the largest solo miner, for example, has publicly said they don't sell their bitcoins. Source? Vavilov told CoinDesk that it decided not to tap its bitcoin reserves as it remains bullish on the long-term value of bitcoin.
"We believe in the long-term perspective [the price of bitcoin] will grow and we decided to not to sell [our bitcoin] at such a low price," Vavilov added. So, their funding rounds are basically to pay for their costs while they hold their coins. How could that possibly go wrong? No, their funding round is likely to develop new ASIC technology and develop their infrastructure. As I've said previously they've had other revenue sources in the past which might still pay for their existing costs. Moreover I'm quite confident their energy costs are absurdly low since they seem to have quite a special relation with the government where their farms are set up (Georgia) |
|
|
|
nice discussion we got going here.  no i don't know exactly were freshly mined coins are going. nobody knows. everybody has just hear-and-say informations. i personally did some business some time ago with mining farm folks and my impression was they gave a shit about bitcoin. privately they held no more than a handful of coins maybe. for them it was just a better kind of investment as into high-yield-bonds or something. but i accept that bitfury may keep them, quite possible. nevertheless the market has to absorb 1 mioUS$ everyday, thats a fucking lot and halving will kick some ass. Make it half that |
|
|
|
Because the largest solo miner, for example, has publicly said they don't sell their bitcoins. Source? Vavilov told CoinDesk that it decided not to tap its bitcoin reserves as it remains bullish on the long-term value of bitcoin.
"We believe in the long-term perspective [the price of bitcoin] will grow and we decided to not to sell [our bitcoin] at such a low price," Vavilov added. |
|
|
|
solominer = 1 BTC per month ... so, they don't sell Bifury mines a couple blocks on average per day |
|
|
|
People really need to stop being ignorant and childish. Every increase in price is not a 'pump' and every decrease is not a 'dump'. miners have to unload their 3600 coins per day at some point...
Yes. miners attitude has changed over the years. todays miners are not bitcoin-enthusiasts anymore, they sell their coins as fast as they can. therefore the halving will be a big fucking kick in their ass. Demonstrably false. why? Because the largest solo miner, for example, has publicly said they don't sell their bitcoins. There are numerous other instances where this has been proven wrong. and there are numerous other instances where this has been proven right. i remember knc selling their shit as soon as possible. i also remember a documentary about some chinese farm. they were also selling as fast as they could. giving a shit about what the actual underlying of their business was. edit: i would love to do some analyzing here, were the fresh coins go. but so far i had no luck finding that out. I'm convinced KNC is not selling all of their coins. |
|
|
|
how do they pay the electricity if they don't sell their coins? 15 % of the network today is like few MW a month.
The entity I'm referring to is Bitfury 1. They're already wealthy people. 2. They have loads of VC money 3. They used to make what is likely to be ridiculous amounts of profits selling mining gear. |
|
|
|
People really need to stop being ignorant and childish. Every increase in price is not a 'pump' and every decrease is not a 'dump'. miners have to unload their 3600 coins per day at some point...
Yes. miners attitude has changed over the years. todays miners are not bitcoin-enthusiasts anymore, they sell their coins as fast as they can. therefore the halving will be a big fucking kick in their ass. Demonstrably false. why? Because the largest solo miner, for example, has publicly said they don't sell their bitcoins. "largest solominer" has a marketshare of? 15% There are numerous other instances where this has been proven wrong. The idea that 3600 coins are being dumped on the market daily is a myth. |
|
|
|
People really need to stop being ignorant and childish. Every increase in price is not a 'pump' and every decrease is not a 'dump'. miners have to unload their 3600 coins per day at some point...
Yes. miners attitude has changed over the years. todays miners are not bitcoin-enthusiasts anymore, they sell their coins as fast as they can. therefore the halving will be a big fucking kick in their ass. Demonstrably false. why? Because the largest solo miner, for example, has publicly said they don't sell their bitcoins. |
|
|
|
People really need to stop being ignorant and childish. Every increase in price is not a 'pump' and every decrease is not a 'dump'. miners have to unload their 3600 coins per day at some point...
Yes. miners attitude has changed over the years. todays miners are not bitcoin-enthusiasts anymore, they sell their coins as fast as they can. therefore the halving will be a big fucking kick in their ass. Demonstrably false. |
|
|
|
I think you need to be intentionally close minded not to see the benefits. “There have previously been a number of attempts by different exchanges to try and realize something like this,” Hill said. “Customers were asking for it, and these companies wanted to test the benefits. But previously, all attempts to do this included some form of counterparty credit agreements, or agreements to accept transactions with no confirmations. Because of the required trust involved in these kinds of solutions, they were never actually launched. By using a federated consensus sidechain, we can give exchanges the control of their own funds, but with the added functionality of instant transactions.” - Austin Hill You can do some calculation I have explained, two exchanges A and B opening 1000 bitcoins account in each other, A's account at B will work as a mortgage, if A went down, his account at B will be forfeited, resulting zero loss for B, vice versa. So no trust is needed once a clearing agreement is made. And because the transaction volume between A and B is small relative to each exchange's total volume, the risk involved in each clearing channel is small. This practice has been tested for hundreds of years between financial institutions Yes it has but as you have illustrated it involves that a certain amount of capital be tied up. Moreover trust is definitely required to establish the clearing agreement. Of course you can also go for a blockchain based solution like side chain, so that you don't need to have clearing agreement with each other. Then you will face some technical challenges which requires time and R&D investment, raised level of complexity typically cause the cost to rise, eventually make it more expensive than clearing based solutions The technology is developed by Blockstream and sold to the exchanges who only have to pay a subscription fees. It seems reasonable to assume that these costs are orders of magnitude less than having to tie up considerable capital reserves at different partner exchanges. Anyway, in either solution, the key is to make B believe that those deposits to A's account at B is legitimate. However, only A knows if it is true because the original transaction is a customer at A sending coins to B. If A did not send this transaction to B, then the customer will not receive coins at B, regardless if A and B are using clearing based or side chain based solution. So the risk is really concentrated on A and B's business ethic, where side chain can not help at all Essentially what you are saying is there is a risk that either participant is running a fractional reserve? That is fair enough but from what I understand Liquid participants are cryptographically protected from this happening. Let me explain: Units on the sidechain can only be created by sending real bitcoins to a special input. One exchange might be running a fractional reserve on their own but they cannot assign "fake" bitcoins to the sidechain and trade them with their partners. |
|
|
|
|
Huobi is downright retarded 15$ over, wtf is happening over there.
|
|
|
|
I respect the work of Peter R and I do not think he is a charlatan.
I support an increase in the blocksize and in the absence of other alternatives I support BIP101.
Yes yes we know  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
