2 hours until US banks starts processing transfers since Thuesday!
Things that might be cheaper than a Bitcoin today:
-Facebook last price Thuesday: $28.32
-Silver last price today: $29.92
My first bullish post since $5 (I'm still out, so no market manipulation here).
FB 28.83 USD, 1 BTC 29.00 USD. Now I would not trade 28.83 USD let alone 0.994 BTC for a share of FB since that stock is an extremely poor performer. |
|
|
|
Todays bear post is about the so called uniqueness of Bitcoin.There is not much to write about it, for all practical purposes Bitcoin is innovative but certainly not unique. Take a look around at the Digital Currency Wiki and tell me why you think Bitcoin is destined for greatness and all those other solutions are not. When doing that keep in mind that the rest of the world doesn't necessarily agree with libertarian ideology. It's exactly because you are living in the first world, that you may not understand why the rest of the world needs it, and its uniqueness. Ohh that's gonna be interesting. Please tell me how the 3rd world population is supposed to benefit from BTC in any way because I cannot think of any. I'm serious.  and don't forget the mountain of gox!
true dat. The Wordpress guy pretty much got it actually, the status quo is if folks in my nation, and many other third world nations wanna pay for, let's say a wordpress or megaupload subscription, or just simply buying goods in a U.S online store, soon they will find many of the times their only option is to ask people like me(oversea students/workers) to help them out, all current payment methods would not work for one reason or another. Credit cards issued in many nations are not accepted, you can't blame the merchants for this, the issuing banks most likely would not give a shit once you are frauded, let alone pay for your losses, and even if you could locate the fraudster, the chance of a successful prosecution is superslim. Paypal does not do business with perhaps more than half of the world's population, and is not allowed to process foreign currency transactions in China, even in those nations it operates, there are very often draconian restrictions, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PayPal#Local_restrictions , the chance that other online payment business/digital currency issuers could operate where Paypal could not is, of course, even slimmer. And don't get me started on the wire transfer, even if the merchant accepts it and you are fine with the exorbitant fees, your fund could be intercepted anytime by an intermediary bank if the amount is slightly large, on the pretext of financial crime prevention of course, and you are left to find out yourself why your fund has not arrived, no one is going to inform you, i had personal experience with that. Bitcoin, on the other hand, could prove to be very useful, I don't know about other nations, but in China, it's a piece of cake to buy bitcoins with existing domestic online payment system like Alipay, even if the government decides to crack down on the exchanges, the online shops could still sell them under all kinds of pretenses, it is nearly impossible the authority would find out what is the good really being delivered. On the oversea merchants side, all they have to do is to use a payment processor, which adds very little cost. Of course, whether bitcoin could really succeed will have to depend on the size and liquidity of the market, in the end. Bitcoin, it seems to me, is basically a digital version of hawala http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawala, except that hawala is nowhere near as versatile as bitcoin is. The decentralization aspect is not just libertarian ideology, it's very tangible in nations where financial barriers are real. This very much nails it except for the fact that there is a very significant proportion of the population in many first world nations such as the United States and Canada who cannot use Paypal, and do not have Credit Cards or even bank accounts. This is mainly because of two reasons: 1) Too young teens and tweens 2) Too poor, no credit or bad credit. It is not just the third world. This problem and its Bitcoin solution applies to many in the first world also. |
|
|
|
|
Well about 10min ago I completed my order. This was night and day when compared to the fiasco earlier this morning. I received one confirmation email from WalletBit and one confirmation email from Avalon, the way it should be. Order#2473 for a total price of 56.82162555 BTC.
|
|
|
|
Sorry, we do not have enough "Avalon ASIC Unit" in stock to fulfill your order (304 in stock). Please edit your cart and try again. We apologise for any inconvenience caused.
There are some issues with the items in your cart (shown above). Please go back to the cart page and resolve these issues before checking out. Save yourself the troubble for the time being. After experiencing an hour of this nonsense this is very wise advice. |
|
|
|
I think they're manipulating the number in stock to control the order rate.
It definitely looks to me like some kind of manipulation at their end. For what purpose I do not know. |
|
|
|
Got confirmation email from walletbit and avalon despite 10m counter timing out.
yeah, systems are a bit slow, but everything is checking out so far, hold your horses guys. I started trying to order at 6:00 am PST an hour ago and still have not been able to place an order after multiple attempts. The furthest I got was entering the shipping information only to be greeted with a various errors. And why the the number of units in the shopping cart keep changing to some random number between 0 and 20 when all I am looking for is one unit. I am not going to be holding my horses after this fiasco. |
|
|
|
What claimed to be damage is really a missed profit. Totally different thing, they should blame themselves really.
Indeed The Scene is a fungi on the already dead log of "treat information as physical good" concept. Envigorating it with money would only speedup the natural process of phasing things out. And not just concepts but pieces like proprietary OSes too for sure.
In the case of Microsoft I would argue that The Scene is essential in order for Microsoft to compete with GNU/Linux. If the 30% of desktop computer users that run pirated Windows were to switch to GNU/Linux the market share of Windows would drop from over 90% to just over 60%. While GNU/Linux would go from 1% to over 30%. How long before a substantial number of desktop computer users that run genuine Windows would follow suite? Invigorating The Scene with money will only serve to delay the replacement of Microsoft Windows with GNU/Linux. The Scene does not hurt Microsoft in any way but is does hurt the Free Software movement and GNU/Linux in a huge way. ... Although the world's largest software maker spends millions of dollars annually to combat illegal copying and distribution of its products, critics allege -- and Microsoft acknowledges -- that piracy sometimes helps the company establish itself in emerging markets and fend off threats from free open-source programs. ... from: http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/09/business/fi-micropiracy9 |
|
|
|
We need to break it on a weekday, so it hits media hard.
"A currency that recoveres from a 98% crash with ten times the market cap. No backing by millionaire or government was ever needed"
This is a valid point. I do suspect that a break above 31.89 USD could spark a major rally for this very reason. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin will pose a very strong competitive threat to both The Scene and the RIAA/Apple/Amazon conglomerates especially with music and ebooks by making it very cost effective to pay writers, artists, creators, indie developers etc.,directly and bypassing all of the middlemen. This will take away a sizeable market share from both sides.
When it comes to software FLOSS is slowly but surely taking away market share from companies like Microsoft and Apple; however The Scene including The Pirate Bay is delaying this process considerably especially in the case of Microsoft since pirated Windows is crucial to support of the network effect for Windows in the marketplace. Bitcoin again is most likely to favour the third option rather than "genuine" or "pirated" propriety software namely GNU/Linux and FLOSS.
Wars generally benefit not the belligerents but rather those who are neutral non participants. Btitcoin is already benefiting as a result of the war between big copyright and file sharing sites as the recent events surrounding MEGA demonstrate.
|
|
|
|
paper wallets can be many forms..
EG i can have a paper wallet that is a poem in a book...
and the key is (for example but not reality) the 3rd word 7th word 26th word and a bunch of numbers for the brain wallet key.
so just having a book on my book shelf that is my paperwallet.
now try stealing my coins..
and for inheritance reasons if i die, just putting a statement for family to read in my Will as:
read my favourite book, word numbers ... .. .. to receive your riches.
and basically if anyone does not know you well enough to know what your talking about, doesnt really deserve your hard labours
What if the house burns down during your funeral and your loved ones are left destitute because they cannot access your Bitcoins? |
|
|
|
These attacks you speak of will never happen because apple execs aren't brain-dead. Due to user backlash they would lose the remainder of their ever-dwindling market share quicker than you can say Satoshi Nakamoto.
Same goes for Microsoft.
You forget who these companies work for.
Did PayPal, Visa and MasterCard loose any significant market share over the Wikileaks blockade? |
|
|
|
The windows setup.exe is signed, as is the Mac .app bundle. The executables inside them are not signed (I can't think of a good reason to sign them, it would not increase download security at all).
You can also still check the download packages using the SHASUMS.asc file, which is signed with my gpg key.
And if you are running Linux or Windows you could check all of the files in the installer against other core developer's keys.
If the code signing certificate was revoked then we would go back to just using gpg keys. The code signing certificate is great because Windows and OSX know how to check it automatically when the download happens.
Thank you very much for the clarification. My concern was actually would the .exe would continue to run under Windows 8 if the certificate was revoked after installation? I believe that under Windows XP/Vista/7 the .exe would continue to run, but I am not clear under Windows 8. The possible danger here is Microsoft being able to shut-down Bitcoin-Qt / bitcoind after installation by revoking the certificate hence the reference to a Treacherous Computing attack. I did run into a somewhat similar situation back in 2005 where an expired certificate on APC PowerChute not only prevented the software from installing but also caused significant damage to the Windows registry. I spent the better part of a Sunday afternoon fixing the Windows registry in order to bring the server back to health The OS was Windows Server 2003. Granted this was an installation faliure but given the direction that Microsoft is taking with Windows 8 RT, I would be rather safe than sorry when it comes to Windows 8 on Intel/AMD. |
|
|
|
...
Improvements
------------
Mac and Windows binaries are signed with certificates owned by the Bitcoin
Foundation, to be compatible with the new security features in OSX 10.8 and
Windows 8.
...
What happens if these certificates are revoked? Could this lead to a Treacherous Computing, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html, attack against Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
Not sure what all this apple hating is about, no one likes their censoring and that part makes sense. Although a 5 year old could jailbreak a iphone. When you produce the best phone and have the largest selection of apps, I guess you get jealous haters. Only one android phone even turns a profit these days, you can hardly get upset that a company likes to turn a profit on thier products.
I will start with the fact that Apple's business model for IOS poses a threat to the integrity and security of Bitcoin. Why because if one gives centralized control over computing devices to a single authority by means of DRM, then one has already set the stage for all sort of attacks against Bitcoin, since the security of Bitcoin depends on individual users having complete control over their computing devices. Do not get me wrong I do not expect for example a 51% attack against Bitcoin to work at all, in-spite of the efforts of Apple with IOS or Microsoft with Windows 8 RT. Nevertheless it makes very little sense to me why anyone involved with Bitcoin would want to support a business model that poses such a security threat to Bitcoin. Please state a specific example of how Apple could attack Bitcoin or Bitcoin users. Apart from what Apple has already done namely ban Bitcoin applications which has had minimal impact on Bitcoin only because there are many Bitcoin users that 1) do not use IOS devices for Bitcoin or 2) have jailbroken their devices. Here are some examples from https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses1) Cancer Nodes Turn every iPhone an iPad that has not been jailbroken into a Bitcoin Cancer node. 2) Timejacking http://culubas.blogspot.ca/2011/05/timejacking-bitcoin_802.htmlTurn every iPhone an iPad that has not been jailbroken into a Bitcoin timejacking node. 3) Rival/malicious client code Apple has the market share to pull this off ... n) any attack where one controls a substantial number of Bitcoin nodes, hash power etc. These attacks work because Apple and not the end users has control over the software and hardware. This is not just Apple FUD as Microsoft is moving in he same direction with Windows 8 RT and given Microsoft’s desktop OS market share this can even post a greater threat to Bitcoin. Let us not forget that both these companies are based in the United States and are therefore subject to US law. Here is an example of a 51% attack by Microsoft: A Windows update that turns every GPU on a Windows machine into a Bitcoin mining node to mine a bad blockchain. To hide itself this could used only say 10% of the GPU power. These are variations of the Treacherous Computing attack on Bitcoin. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html The warning on Treacherous Computing was first published by Richard Stallman over a decade ago and is extremely relevant to the security of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Not sure what all this apple hating is about, no one likes their censoring and that part makes sense. Although a 5 year old could jailbreak a iphone. When you produce the best phone and have the largest selection of apps, I guess you get jealous haters. Only one android phone even turns a profit these days, you can hardly get upset that a company likes to turn a profit on thier products.
I will start with the fact that Apple's business model for IOS poses a threat to the integrity and security of Bitcoin. Why because if one gives centralized control over computing devices to a single authority by means of DRM, then one has already set the stage for all sort of attacks against Bitcoin, since the security of Bitcoin depends on individual users having complete control over their computing devices. Do not get me wrong I do not expect for example a 51% attack against Bitcoin to work at all, in-spite of the efforts of Apple with IOS or Microsoft with Windows 8 RT. Nevertheless it makes very little sense to me why anyone involved with Bitcoin would want to support a business model that poses such a security threat to Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
and the mind reader says:
... it is all very cloudy ... I cannot read your mind ... all I see is GNUs and penguins blocking my view ... I do not see any windows into your mind ... without windows I cannot read your mind ...
|
|
|
|
A market where everyone thinks that he is gonna be rich in the next few years cannot work.
It made sense for me to invest in the past when I felt alone in this tough, but now, now everyone went mad.
This would make a lot of sense were it not for the post below: Since 99.99% of the world population have never heard bitcoin, it's definietly far away from everyone thinks that he is gonna be rich
+1 to jl2012's post |
|
|
|
yes
lucif
proudhon
adam
ElectricMucus
sublime
i'm probably missing a few.
The biggest BTC bear has to be pirateat40; however he defaulted on his massive BTC short position six months ago. Running a ponzi doesn't make someone a bear. Paying 7% a week in BTC is perfectly sustainable if the BTC / USD rate drops at a compound rate greater than 7% a week as it did in the fall of 2011. All you do is sell your BTC for USD and hold USD. When the BTC / USD first stabilized and then started to rise this bear first tried to manipulate the market (hugh mistake) and when this did not work then it became indistinguishable from a ponzi. It is the real rate of return not the nominal rate of return one has to look at in order to determine if something is a ponzi or not. |
|
|
|
yes
lucif
proudhon
adam
ElectricMucus
sublime
i'm probably missing a few.
The biggest BTC bear has to be pirateat40; however he defaulted on his massive BTC short position six months ago. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
