Give it time my friend. Give it time. All will be well in years to come.

You and I both. I sold and took a large profit after the $1000+ pump and then re-bought back in at $500 with principle and post-pump earnings. Needless to say, it's been a rough year and with the recent declines, it's even harder not to pull the sell trigger.

Making money on BTC is nice, but I got in initially as an investment store for extra cash I was tired of making .0000000001% on through my savings account. I don't worry as much about the price as I do the exchanges folding and with few places to spend it yet. I'd really like to see the infrastructure grow to use it. I hear Uber may be collaborating with Coinbase...

Has anyone ever done an analysis to find out what wallets Mt. Gox coins were transferred into post-hack? Additional tin foiling; what if they laundered the stolen coins from Gox through the SR.

In light of the recent plunge (a half-baked theory):

1. The massive sell-off was planned

a) Bitstamp (among others) has been fighting an entire year of slowly decreasing BTC prices. Although transaction volumes were increasing in 2014, coin value was steadily in decline. While they were making money on trading volume, the decreasing value in BTC was costing them a lot of money in sell offs, much of which was used prior to buy over inflated coins by Bitstamp.

b) In an effort to front run an engineered drop in price, 19,000+ BTC valued between ~$300-$1100 were 'stolen.' Me thinks the average price per coin was closer to $600/$800 that Bitstamp paid.

c) Price plummets and Bitstamp buys back 'lost' 19,000+ BTC at reduced price.

d) Steady increase in price in the months to follow or at least some short term positive price movement AKA Bitstamp recovers from insolvency/greedy hedging bets made in 2014.


Just a thought.

I am riding this coaster all the way into the ground with coins at an average buy at $500/coin. I am rather curious to (possibly) find out what buying BTC is like in the single digits.

Many got burned this past year by buying high and selling low (forced liquidation/get rich quick schemes). 2014 was a high speculative gambling era. 2015 opens up the market to those with actual investment dollars.

What about opening an exchange that allows the user to trade on the exchange against fiat currencies, however; at time of sale, gives a sum in crypto that equates to the user chosen currency? No fiat is transferred ever.

Appreciate the insight. I do not possess the coding knowledge, but have many colleagues who do and I have a few favors in the bank. I am in the US, so this is all pretty much impossible it seems given the uncertain legalities surrounding exchanges, large upfront costs, etc., but none-the-less interesting.

Once the need for exchanges dies off, I wonder where they will go? I figure businesses in the future won't need them as they will have their own built in fiat/BTC payments systems and possible means of exchange conversion.

I always have been genuinely curious about the barriers to entry. Currently, I see exchanges as the sole limiting factor in Bitcoinland. They are so rife with corruption (or at least the susceptibility to it or theft). Many have investor backing, but is that fiat being put towards BTC/fiat solvency or is it being used for something else.

Opening a platform, accepting customer fiat and writing Bitcoin IOUs in theory requires very little starting cash (not factoring in MT licensing, regulatory anything, etc.). Once the fiat pool is large enough, you would have enough cash flow to cover the risk and could potentially invest it through your own exchange.

How much does it cost to open/operate an exchange from a non-regulatory stand point?

I wonder if it would be possible for miners to act as a clearinghouse? All trades through the exchange hot wallet are susceptible to attack. If you had miners both mining blocks and arbitrating transactions, you could have built in security at the level of the exchange as well.

Or would it be possible for an exchange to use placeholders for its hot wallet transactions? --The floating hot wallet keys on their server would be placeholder keys only for a quick processing. When the transactions completes and is confirmed, an instantaneous wallet key is used, transaction happens and repeat. Stamp would than be able to get their fiat or Bitcoin once the transaction posts and is confirmed.

This might become a problem in the long run. When you're trading, ease and swiftness of transactions is crucial. The constant signing and waiting could have negative effects on users of the exchange.

Since Stamp now uses multi-sig, does this mean that their wallets will all employ this technology when they are pushing their own money around in house? If not, traders will be stuck waiting while Stamp is making instant cash of facilitating trades fast on their end and slow on the trader's end.

Multi-sig is great for individual customers and protecting their individual coins on the exchange, but how does one protect against theft of their protected coins from theft on the exchange (causing them to shut down and take your money)?

That's the problem with these jackass VC/entrepreneur guys and opening exchanges; they are not solvent ever. In an unregulated, volatile market, no exchange can stay solvent. It's just not possible. For every fiat dollar in, they should have BTC reserves of 100+ fold value in order to cover the swings in price (this is not possible, but the swings can be so extreme this may be necessary). All they do is keep writing BTC I.O.U.s and taking the fiat. When shit hits the fan or goes sky rocket, speculators come knocking for their cash and suddenly exchanges go dark or claim theft...

Edit: I fear this is no coincidence.

Yes, provided the court can prove it's stolen.

It is, but the government itself was not responsible for that force so no laws need to be on the books. That's the ticket! Shirking responsibility since 1776. This is how the US gets around a lot of shit like this: third-party van parties.

Generally, penalties/fees/interest are amassed on the amount you owe. Why would you honestly file and then refuse to pay?

The logic for criminal tax evasion and jail time has to do lying/failure to file. Tax evasion is punishable by jail time.

If you honestly file and can't pay, there are numbers of ways to go on payment plans, eventual consolidation, striking of deals if the amount is large enough, etc.

I wasn't arguing about whether it is a right or wrong policy or that I was the first to think of it. No special snowflake status for me. I was just conveying how laws are organized around certain issues. I did not get my statements from the intertubes, I got them from Supreme Court Case Florida v. United States regarding the ability to file income taxes as voluntary, i.e. the government doesn't have to do it on your behalf, it gives the citizen the right to do it.

Taxation is NOT voluntary in the US unless in criminal situations and other special cases. I didn't say this. I said forced taxation is unconstitutional, i.e. using force. You don't go to jail for not paying your taxes. You go to jail for failure to file your tax return, for lying on your forms, etc. This is how the government gets around using actual force. It made it voluntary to file income tax, i.e. gave the responsibility to its citizens. In effect, the government provided the rope to which its citizens voluntarily hang themselves.

That is quite interesting, specifically when in comparison to the US. Here, possession/receiving stolen goods is a burden of proof placed on the state before any charges can be brought against the receiver who unknowingly received the stolen goods.

Of course, the unaware citizen must truly be unaware (able to defense his position if called upon in court), but the mere possession of stolen property (given it truly is) is not technically illegal if the one who possesses it did not know.

Speaking about the US:

1) Forced taxation of its citizen is unconstitutional, i.e. in the US, it is illegal for the government to force its citizens to pay taxes just because they are in the US.

2) However, the law states that all citizens must file a tax return. It is illegal to not file a tax return, i.e. all citizens are forced to file a return.

3) In effect, failure to file is illegal (punished constitutionally) in order to in force taxation (unconstitutionally).

That's the problem with being a citizen--

The state (or law or government) bestows to you your rights and duties in that particular land. I agree with Elwar in theory, but wherever you end up being born, some governing body has been there long before your birth and will subject you to its desires.

As Elwar said, it's all about defending your rights. In the US this could mean protesting. In Somalia, this could mean shedding blood.