|
overall bitcoin volume is much lower than in april.
|
|
|
|
btc always recovers. as long as you dont sell for lower than you paid youll be fine
What if you buy for more than you sold? Don't forget that part. Ironically nobody is concerned about that. |
|
|
|
Need Rhodium now!  Is it just me or do you guys also have a desire to try this piece of metal between your teeth? I wonder if it's somewhat soft like tin. IIRC it's the second hardest metal. |
|
|
|
Why compare entire bitcoinssatoshis (which are the smallest denomination given which can't be changed without a hard-fork) with *atoms* of gold no less?
FTFY Keep in mind that changing the smallest denomination would make old clients unusable and doing it would also affect the market, so it's not as easy to do as you might think. Why not femtocoins of BTC with megatonnes of gold?
Because nobody else does it. Again I compare ounces with bitcoins because most people use these denominations. |
|
|
|
Like Bitcoins rhodium exhibits three properties:
It is very rare, (much) rarer than Gold
How is Bitcoin more or less rare than gold? There's more kilograms of one, but more satoshis of the other. How does that compare on the rareness-scale?  Notice the 's' in Bitcoin s? I was talking about single Bitcoins, not any named subunits some guy came up with. There are more Gold atoms than Satoshis btw. You may see that as "common unit" bitcoins, troy ounces, oil barrels, etc.. |
|
|
|
|
Look at it this way: How many BTC have Chinese ASIC owners and producers now and how many will they have in a year?
|
|
|
|
How about responding to my post?
Ok. Eyeballing it, the volatility of Rhodium and Coffee looks similar enough. Bitcoin, of course, has been more volatile. NewLibertyStandard quoted $0.0007639 per BTC in 2009. Now we're close to $300. OMG, the volatility!!! Bitcoin is still a toy in terms of global relevance. It's in its infancy. To cry "volatility" is both to miss the point, and to fail to acknowledge where we are in the lifecycle. In short, such observations are meaningless. So you do you think one Bitcoin will be traded for US$ 117,816,468 in 4 years? Good riddance. I propose you the following exercise: Look at any 4 year period of rhodium prices and tell me it can't be mistaken for something bitcoin is doing. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin isn't an electronic anything.
It's Bitcoin. Sui generis, bitch.
Best response yet. You are of course right. What I am pointing out are the similarities, which end here. What remains is more like how Bitcoin works as an investment which is very similar, to how rhodium is threated, the amount of investment taking over the largest portion of the price. |
|
|
|
|
How about responding to my post?
|
|
|
|
|
lol that's not relentless.
|
|
|
|
Possible. But I see typical signs of terminal 5th wave in people excitement sentiments.
1: 0-> 32 3: 2-> 266 5: 50-> XXXX How can it be any other way? |
|
|
|
no one shorts bitcoins
I do. In a bull market? Good luck with that. Good luck buying an all time high. People who bought @32 USD in March 2013 and in 2011 starting at 1 USD have only possibly lost money if they overtraded. Buying at the new alltime high is very attractive IMO. This^ Bear's almost never learn. Some do. True. |
|
|
|
i hope if we hit ATH, investors put monies aside for vasectomies
You are weird. |
|
|
|
Mind you only GMT counts.  |
|
|
|
While all miners work from the most recently discovered block (think of it as the "original" block), the selfish mining process begins when a pool of miners discovers a new block and doesn't publish it. The selfish pool then begins working on discovering yet another block, mining from this hidden one. Meanwhile, the rest of the "honest" miners are still wasting resources mining from the original block. Can you mine FROM a "hidden" block? This makes no sense to me. Sure, you can mine a block, not publish it, and continue mining. But unless your pool has 51% of the network, the odds are the rest of the network will invalidate the block you are hiding, and then you've just lost a block and have to start over. It does nothing to harm the network, just yourself. Read it carefully, you need 34% for total dominance. That is because you can publish the hidden block once you get wind of another block of the same height and the rest of the network will be preoccupied with both your block and the other block, effectively halving their hash rate. It kind of works with less% too but you don't get all the bitcoins, and it becomes less and less effective from there on. |
|
|
|
Looks like they are talking about 51% attack and blockchain forking, without actually understanding what they talk about...
No, it's not a 51% attack. But similarly, it does depend on miners doing something that will eventually hurt their own investment. It's a 26% attack. Not really a big deal tough. |
|
|
|
People who work in the service industry have it tough enough, I'm not going to make them jump through hoops to get their tip.
Come on, where is your contribution to The Movement? Trying to keep the forums clean doesn't count? Look around you. That said it depends on whatever you think The Movement actually is. |
|
|
|
|
The major difference here is the more overall effort is put into digging stuff up the more overall product comes out of it. Since Bitcoins are generated at a regulated rate increased effort can only increase the amount generated temporarily till the regulation sets in. And that is only because the mechanism is overdamped.
The only thing "mining" emphasizes is "doing work". which it is not, even in "computer terms". Work has the inherent property of the effect being directly proportional to the amount of work, and useful work that of a useful product which is more useful if it is the product of more work. "Proof of work" nonces are only useful "by definition" of the protocol. You might argue that a nonce resulting in a lower target is more useful but it's really not. Any nonce is exactly as useful as another since they only ever protect against an attack of half the hashing power, whatever that may be.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
