|
1021
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Martin Armstrong Discussion
|
on: April 16, 2017, 03:26:17 PM
|
|
...
sidhujag
We are now arguing over the semantics of counterparty and government.
A solution re which to hold (gold or Bitcoin) is easy. As I have long argued, and have the battle scars to prove it, HODLing both Bitcoin and gold neatly addresses some of your concerns. Since no one can predict the future, having some holdings of each reduces risk of Black Swan events taking your wealth.
Gold IS wealth. Wealth is something you own, that costs currency to get. With gold you are already paid. Bitcoin needs a transaction...
I am very curious to see if iamnotback's latest speculative calls (SELL cryptos, a tad over-simplifying) is going to come true.
|
|
|
|
|
1022
|
Economy / Service Discussion / Re: BTC.com Transaction Accelerator
|
on: April 16, 2017, 03:35:06 AM
|
pushtx.btc.com is down at the moment. Any idea when it will be open again?
Or any other alternatives ?
I don't have an idea when pushtx.btc.com will comeback honestly but you have ViaBTC accelerator which could do the same job (but could take longer): https://www.viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/ and It's free. OmegaSS is right. Why pay for some service of dubious reliability when ViaBTC's free service has been proven over & over again to work pretty well. ViaBTC's service has worked for me over a dozen times, the longest delay after acceleration was about 6 hours, but usually my trx have been confirmed withing an hour or so. My only real concern is that ViaBTC may stop offering that nice little service which is so helpful (like when I receive small payments like Signature Campaign payments). For outgoing payments, just pony up a decent-sized fee when there are a lot of unconfirmed trx... |
|
|
|
|
1023
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Martin Armstrong Discussion
|
on: April 16, 2017, 03:28:04 AM
|
... Lot of different issues to comment on here now, I will limit myself to two, and comment on any others later. I think that r0ach is right re gold. Both that the price is way out of historical norms, and some kind of snap back to a more normal range is to be expected. And there are a lot of ideas and theories as to how high gold will go (I do not know silver well, in fact last week I traded 200 oz of Ag and $600 for 3 oz of Au). I suspect that gold will go up A LOT given time. Also, re counterparty risk, if you look at the risk of a counterparty NOT fulfilling a deal/contract, it is clear that BTC being spent depends on performance by counterparties... Assuming you own gold, you have already been paid!* * * iamnotback has just made another very clear call (sell BTC). I may trade some for gold (Provident Metals accepts BTC as payment), but almost surely I will HODL at least some BTC with the hope that the Developers and the Miners will finally grow a set and resolve the BTC scaling issues. She it! Should imanotback get this one right like his recent call on LTC, I'll be following his advice much more often.  You didnt read my post.. even if you own that gold it can essily be blacklisted Actually I did read your post. Sure, the government could come along and ban holding gold, ban Au exports, or tax any transactions very highly. In my opinion, that is unlikely. Gold will likely be considered the BEST capital should the US$ and other currencies have a bad ending. Smart governments (granted, many are NOT smart) will likely make it EASY for gold owners to come out "the other side" and invest after a severe financial crisis. COUNTERPARTY, as it is usually understood, refers to your counterparty (perhaps a seller of something in exchange for your gold) failing to fulfill his end of a deal. |
|
|
|
|
1024
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: John Nash created bitcoin
|
on: April 16, 2017, 03:15:48 AM
|
|
...
Tversky and Kahneman (two famous Israeli psychologists) have proven over and over again that humans very often do NOT behave rationally, for a variety of reasons. Even in experiments where the mathematical parameters are pretty clear. Even psychologists have fallen for the irrational choices in those experiments.
Lack of information is whole 'nother topic, yep responses can become even less rational (or at least less predictable) then.
|
|
|
|
|
1025
|
Economy / Exchanges / Re: 16/04/2017 BTC Done.. Dead, Epic Dump 0.06 USD 1 Btc
|
on: April 16, 2017, 03:07:36 AM
|
|
...
Has to be a glitch/error/hack of some sort. Every time today I have looked at the price of BTC, it has been in the $1180 - $1195 range.
No way did BTC price go down to 6 cents. That would have been the world's most epic flash-crash, losing 99.995% or so of its value in minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
1026
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Martin Armstrong Discussion
|
on: April 16, 2017, 02:53:56 AM
|
... Lot of different issues to comment on here now, I will limit myself to two, and comment on any others later. I think that r0ach is right re gold. Both that the price is way out of historical norms, and some kind of snap back to a more normal range is to be expected. And there are a lot of ideas and theories as to how high gold will go (I do not know silver well, in fact last week I traded 200 oz of Ag and $600 for 3 oz of Au). I suspect that gold will go up A LOT given time. Also, re counterparty risk, if you look at the risk of a counterparty NOT fulfilling a deal/contract, it is clear that BTC being spent depends on performance by counterparties... Assuming you own gold, you have already been paid!* * * iamnotback has just made another very clear call (sell BTC). I may trade some for gold (Provident Metals accepts BTC as payment), but almost surely I will HODL at least some BTC with the hope that the Developers and the Miners will finally grow a set and resolve the BTC scaling issues. She it! Should imanotback get this one right like his recent call on LTC, I'll be following his advice much more often. |
|
|
|
|
1027
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 60,000 Unconfirmed transaction and counting
|
on: April 15, 2017, 02:23:48 AM
|
I've been trying to accelerate my transactions with the Transaction Accelerator from the website called viabtc.com, they work pretty well. The transactions that I've made were confirmed within 24 hours and I can't really complain on the type of speed that it has because I have a feeling that if I didn't use that then my Bitcoins would be within limbo like everything other transaction on Bitcoins Blockchain.
I think that this website is the only one out there right now though.
I just ran a pair of transactions through ViaBTC's acceleration service, which I have used with success quite a few times. Both attempts were good ("Acceleration succeeded"). Now we will see how long it takes for the confirmations to actually happen. I put both in by 10:10 PM (US ET). As of now, there are about 29,800 unconfirmeds, so we'll see. |
|
|
|
|
1028
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Speculation (Altcoins) / Re: Do you see alts have chances against Bitcoins?
|
on: April 15, 2017, 01:09:33 AM
|
Bitcoin dominance was around 90% for a long while, now it has dropped to 67.5%. A lot of money has been put into alt coins. Also the number of coins with more than 10 million USD value has risen.
This means we're getting less dependable on BTC and in the future more coins will have a billion marketcap. The total marketcap of 28 billion total in crypto is peanuts on a global economy's scale.
It has all to do with how things are going with uncertainties around the potential chain split -- people use altcoins to hedge Bitcoin. I am sure that if there was no threat and Bitcoin has reached consensus, altcoins wouldn't be pumped up so badly. That's why I consider altcoins to sit in a massive bubble. Bubble will continue to grow as long as there is no scaling solution. From there I wouldn't be surprised to see Bitcoin's dominance in percentages go down further. Yeah, that's my take too, FWIW (which is not much). The uncertainties are meaningful here, Bitcoin is in danger that the Bitcoin PTB may fuck it all up with their senseless civil war. It is also somewhat rare for "first player advantage" to last forever. Bitcoin will probably NOT be the end-solution (IMO) as it will be hard to use on a massive scale for a very long time. An altcoin could very well pop-up somewhere that has one or more real advantages over BTC. One that I am keeping an eye on is AnonyMint's/iamnotback's alt..... * * * European Central Bank and jonald_fyookball appear to have nailed an important point as well: perhaps BTC cannot be fast & cheap & secure, perhaps one coin cannot do it all. |
|
|
|
|
1029
|
Economy / Economics / Re: One Reason not to be "All Inn" on any Single Investment for Long
|
on: April 15, 2017, 12:52:59 AM
|
...
I have long written that diversification is a very smart idea. No one can predict the future, etc. But discussed below is another reason not be 100% in ANY investment, at least for long. I ran into this argument at a gold blog.
Imagine that you are 100% invested, "All Inn", in gold. Even if the price of gold were to go way up, there is still a big risk that many don't see. Namely what happens if there is a big price drop JUST when the owner might NEED to sell (eg, an unexpected emergency). If our imaginary friend bought in at $1275 gold (approx. price today), and then price drops to $900 (Martin Armstrong predicts a sharp price drop like this, prior to a big price rise, a "slingshot" price rise after its initial drop).
And then, just at a bad time for the gold owner, he might need money (US dollars) to cover an unexpected $200,000 medical bill. And he if forced to sell his gold at a 25% loss to cover his bills... Ouch! It would hurt even more should gold then go to $2500 per ounce.
So, it is unwise to be All Inn on gold, even if we were to be very sure that $2500 gold is coming.
The above scenario would hold for Bitcoin as well, or anything else to be held long-term.
Some of us gold owners have a saying: "Protect the precious." That means keep some powder dry (CA$H on hand) for the unexpected.
I pretty much agree with the last sentence, it's better to have some cash on hand always. But I have in mind a scenario which probably could put into question the logic of all the above. Say you've invested in two things, gold and Bitcoin. And now you urgently need money. How can you know for sure which of them to sell? Say this happened in April 2013 when Bitcoin hit all times high $250 at the moment, and gold just dropped from 1,780 USD/oz in October 2012 to 1,430 USD/oz in April 2013. Wouldn't you think then that it's better to sell Bitcoin while it's on its peak and hold gold because it has been seeing better times? But as we all know gold has dropped since to 1,287 USD/oz, and Bitcoin has risen big time First, it depends on the liquidity of the asset, i.e. how fast you can convert it to fiat in case of emergency. Obviously, with Bitcoin it is a matter of a few minutes in most cases, though in some specific cases you can just take your gold and bring it to a pawnshop, thus getting cash that you may need so urgently. Further, the price movements won't be relevant if you are really in an urgent need for money, so you will just act in the direction which is most effective and efficient at reaching your end, but the specifics will obviously vary greatly depending on your situation deisik and Betwrong are closest to the actual point I originally was trying to make. I have long written positively about the benefits of diversification. The "One Reason..." (thread title) is with holding just one asset that fluctuates in price, you expose yourself to a BIG RISK, an involuntary liquidation of the asset if two things go wrong:-- You have an unexpected emergency, for example, where you need to raise LOTS of cash (medical emergency, bailing your brother-in-law out of jail, etc.), cash that you do not have lying around because ALL of your money is just in gold (or Bitcoin). and -- Your asset may indeed likely will go very high in price in the future (which I believe will happen with both BTC and gold), but their prices can have big swings down too. And if a sharp price drop happens AND the unexpected emergency comes up, you would be forced to liquidate some (or more) of your investment at that low price... Only to watch that price shoot for the moon later on... "Protect the precious" <=== Keep some cash around because you never know. No one knows what will happen. NO ONE. * * * deisik has a useful comment that I bolded above in red, if you have two or more assets to cash in. |
|
|
|
|
1030
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Martin Armstrong Discussion
|
on: April 15, 2017, 12:41:22 AM
|
As for bitcoin: This market is flat out fraud. $30 $41 spread between Finex and Bitstamp. Since we all know Bitfinex is an insolvent exchange that trades against it's own customers and also steals their money, I'm guessing that spread is also propped up by non-existent money just like Gox. Why are people willing to put up a $2 million buy wall on Bitfinex but no other exchange to try and prop up price? Because Bitfinex probably isn't even using real money, just imaginary exchange digits. I've been saying BitFinex is the new Gox forever and here it is. There is no valid price of bitcoin as long as Bitfinex is the market maker. The current chart looks like shit and is forming a down channel and you got fraudsters on Bitfinex trying to manipulate it up with imaginary money that probably doesn't exist:  I agree. I sold my BTC for USD. I am also sold out of LTC. I would also suggest hedging your silver and gold. Price is going to take a nose drive in May. Move everything to USD and wait. I never was much on Technical Analysis (never did any of the three guys I know who were into it make a good and verifiable prediction). Excellent timing re selling LTC after the BIG MOVE you predicted, iamnotback. Gold & Bearing Guy is going to hold his gold, BTC and US$ as I have no idea what's going to happen. But, now I have you two (r0ach and iamnotback) making clear and understandable predictions, so I'll keep my eyes out. I never made money on "trading" either, I did great though when I picked good assets and held. If Armstrong is right about gold (down to $800, then to $2000+), well great. I have serenely held gold through bear markets before without anxiety. |
|
|
|
|
1031
|
Economy / Economics / Re: One Reason not to be "All Inn" on any Single Investment for Long
|
on: April 12, 2017, 07:52:26 PM
|
Maybe you are referring for the word "All In" rather than the word "All Inn" you repeated again and again. "Inn" is like a lodge or a restaurant.
By the way, I agreed on you that investing "all in" is something that noone should do. But on the way that you've explained it isn't really makes it so bad since he got money to pay his hospital bills even though he loss some money.
Yes, I agree that we shouldn't invest "all in" since in all investment there would always be a risk so rather than investing all in just one then why not spread it into other investments. But just as I've said don't put "All" so you must atleast leave 50% of all the money you have in you.
There is a saying that "We shouldn't put all our eggs in just one basket" (I don't know if that's the exact words in those saying). This must be kept in mind to all gamblers and investors.
It's a saying, mi amigo! A metaphor... Guess you're not a "gold guy", smile...  (Think that all your investment is staying at the inn) But, you understand my main point well. |
|
|
|
|
1033
|
Economy / Economics / One Reason not to be "All Inn" on any Single Investment for Long
|
on: April 12, 2017, 07:15:15 PM
|
|
...
I have long written that diversification is a very smart idea. No one can predict the future, etc. But discussed below is another reason not be 100% in ANY investment, at least for long. I ran into this argument at a gold blog.
Imagine that you are 100% invested, "All Inn", in gold. Even if the price of gold were to go way up, there is still a big risk that many don't see. Namely what happens if there is a big price drop JUST when the owner might NEED to sell (eg, an unexpected emergency). If our imaginary friend bought in at $1275 gold (approx. price today), and then price drops to $900 (Martin Armstrong predicts a sharp price drop like this, prior to a big price rise, a "slingshot" price rise after its initial drop).
And then, just at a bad time for the gold owner, he might need money (US dollars) to cover an unexpected $200,000 medical bill. And he if forced to sell his gold at a 25% loss to cover his bills... Ouch! It would hurt even more should gold then go to $2500 per ounce.
So, it is unwise to be All Inn on gold, even if we were to be very sure that $2500 gold is coming.
The above scenario would hold for Bitcoin as well, or anything else to be held long-term.
Some of us gold owners have a saying: "Protect the precious." That means keep some powder dry (CA$H on hand) for the unexpected.
|
|
|
|
|
1034
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Martin Armstrong Discussion
|
on: April 12, 2017, 03:01:17 PM
|
I've read Armstrong's Socrates gold update reports on March 3, March 27, and April 10.
My interpretation is we can expect gold to push up to as high as $1340 maximum (might only reach $1289) due to uncertain expectation of Le Pen victory tumult in France and Trump's military escalation.
But this will be the last time for you tinfoil hats to take profits before a likely flash crash to just below $1000 before we begin the bullish SLINGSHOT where gold aligns with DJIA and $USD.
I seeing between the tea leaves that a likely failure of Le Pen in France is perhaps the catalyst for the exhale on gold. Trump's early failures are having a negative impact on Le Pen's chances. Then all hell will break lose later in 2017 and gold will SLINGSHOT back up.
Or perhaps Le Pen will look weak in the primary but actually win in May, so that could be another reason for more rapid SLINGSHOT effect.
I am beginning to think that Armstrong may be right on his SLINGSHOT idea. It's a pattern we have seen before, and Martin likes patterns. Now that he has made a fairly clear and easy to understand prediction, this will be a good test of his thinking (subject to unpredictable events like Le Pen, etc.). Interesting comment re Trumps' early failures making a dent in Le Pen's chances. |
|
|
|
|
1035
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 200 lines = You're a bank now.
|
on: April 12, 2017, 03:12:11 AM
|
|
...
Meuh6879
Why it was at Zero Hedge where I first saw the expression "Be your own Central Bank. Buy gold!"
OK, now we certainly now extend that to:
"Be your own Central Bank. Buy gold and Bitcoin!"
Gold and BTC are a powerful and complementary combination of HODLing wealth. Throw some FIAT$ in as well, and you really are a bank.
|
|
|
|
|
1036
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Russia Set to Legalize Bitcoin by 2018, Track Every Transaction
|
on: April 12, 2017, 03:04:48 AM
|
|
...
Qartada, Dorky
At least for the short-term, yes, a careful covering of tracks would make it hard for any government to match transactions to wallet owners. But, if monitoring starts getting tighter (more effective), there might be a place to hide in some alts which are geared to more privacy.
Still a big and intrusive .gov might be able to do a lot of damage even if it does not control Bitcoin (et al). The most vulnerable part of the cryptocurrencies are the entrance and exit ramps (the money you use to buy BTC (credit cards say) or the products you buy with BTC (and hence have shipped to you)). It is where the crypto world ends and the "real" world begins is the weak point, where .gov could crack down.
|
|
|
|
|
1038
|
Economy / Service Discussion / Re: 10 VPN Services Providers That Accept Bitcoin
|
on: April 09, 2017, 11:00:49 PM
|
VPN makes us untraceable
No it doesn't. Don't lull yourself into a false sense of security. Why sir? If you use a VPN it will hide your location and if you're just doing it for gambling purposes then it can make you untraceable and you can access the site using VPN. I think that what VPN's for to hide your location Well it stops your ISP/your employer/somebody on your local network from snooping through your traffic, but you're just moving the problem somewhere else. Instead of your ISP or whoever looking at your traffic, you have to worry about the VPN provider or the VPN provider's ISP looking at the traffic instead. Additionally I don't see what gambling has to do with anything  (Red highlighting mine) One of the reasons to use a VPN is to disguise your location. Since the gambling sites are apparently illegal in the USA, I am guessing that with a good VPN that has service (servers) outside the USA that gambling might now be accessible to Americans. I have not tried this possibility out, however. If anyone (American or whoever) HAS tried this out, well tell us! |
|
|
|
|
1039
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Bitcoin defeats the Chinese government
|
on: April 09, 2017, 10:54:36 PM
|
I've never expected for the Chinese government to ever really be able to combat the "Bitcoin menace" as it would be, regardless of all the various things they try to implement to get their people from using it. There are simply too many people with too many different means of getting what they want, along with too big of a market to stop it at this point.
Bitcoin is no longer experiencing the same influence from China as it once did. There is still some influence China can exert, but it is much smaller than what it used to be.
Yes, I'll along with all that you wrote. There seem to be many ways of getting BTC out of China (and so can buy other assets outside of China). I believe a lot of VPNs also work in China to cloak browsing as well as make it possible (at least in many cases) to avoid the "Great Firewall of China". Should it become easier to buy assets worth a lot of money with Bitcoin, more Chinese people will likely start getting money into BTC and out of China. |
|
|
|
|
1040
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Girl,Tokyo,72hrs--Bitcoin Survive Challenge
|
on: April 09, 2017, 10:46:57 PM
|
Its awesome to have a counterpoint to china's crypto involvement(even if its been there for a long time and normie btc users like myself never noticed).
Wonder if japan with its microchip savvy might enter ASIC design & production at some point in time.
AFAIK japan's electronics design and chip lithography are very good. They could have the capacity to produce next generation ASIC chips if they decided to pursue that goal Mining in its present form is dead already I mean with all that expensive mining hardware. In fact, it is dead even twice. As I would say, it is dead conceptually, and if something doesn't get changed on its own (in a evolutionary way), it will be changed forcefully (in a revolutionary way). But it is already dead on purely technical grounds as well, there is no more room left to increase hash rates due to technological limits. You can't indefinitely raise CPU frequencies (in a meaningful way), it is basically the same with asics. Further increasing their capacity would require enormous capital but that simply doesn't make sense. In short, asics mining is at a dead end from both sides of the stick I have long been wondering if/when some of the big chip makers (Samsung Electronics, Toshiba, etc.) have not gotten in to making ASIC chips for Bitcoin. It would seem to me that Samsung or Toshiba would be in a position to make MILLIONS of these chips a dominate the space. Maybe the economics don't justify it yet (BTC market too small?). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
