Yeah! And then froze Trahill account and forced Paxum to abandon relations with Mt.Gox  In both cases you have services that allow reversible transactions as a funding source being used to purchase Bitcoin and that is nothing but trouble. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not remotely like anything like Ithaca HOURS dollars or any other "community currency". It is a global capitalistic monetary system that doesn't give a damn about social justice, equality, and the like.
It does indeed. It takes the power to manipulate wealth away from plutocrats and gives them to the working class. It evens the playing field. Everyone has equality in a Bitcoin system; there are no classes, no rich and no poor, just Bitcoin users. Really, we don't need HOURS if we have Bitcoin because it works just as well. Bitcoin is ideally suited for small international transactions while community currencies are by their very nature designed to be used within a local community. About the only thing they have in common is that they take power away from currencies at the nation state level such as USD, or a at the level of group of nation states such as EUR. There is actually a place for both. The more I think about this issue the more clear it becomes that Keynesian economics makes the most sense at the local community level, namely Ithaca hours and similar community currencies, while Austrian economics makes the most sense at the international level, namely Bitcoin and Gold. |
|
|
|
The South African army’s technical support was part of a shift towards the use of surveillance tech in conservation. Drones, which are cheaper than ever thanks to the U.S. military’s decade-plus of development along with a new private drone economy, have become popular in ecology and conservation efforts. Ecologists working with orangutans were notable early adopters, with drones offering the ability to fly over forests for surveys far cheaper than manned flights could ever be.
Drones are making their way into the wildlife trade as well. Google recently gave the WWF $5 million for drones to protect wildlife in Africa and Asia, while a number of other conservation groups have been getting into the drone game. Clive Vivier, a 65 year old rhino farmer and co-founder of the Zululand rhino reserve in South Africa, recently received permission from the U.S. State Department to buy Arcturus T-20 drones, which feature 17-foot wingspans, 16 hour flight times, and which are used by the Navy. http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/rhino-horn-crisis-and-the-darknetThere is some hope, with the use of drones to hunt the poachers down. |
|
|
|
In case you missed it, during the action last night, two parties built up a very sizable options position during the move. Someone bought ~33,000 calls between $17-20 strike. Someone else sold short 27,000 puts between $33-35 strike. Chatlog : http://polimedia.us/trilema/2013/marketplace-excitement-with-expert-commentary-for-your-vicarious-trading-pleasure/The puts alone would require a deposit of at least 60,000 BTC in the seller's MPEx account. Could this person also be preparing to push the exchange rate upward? All of these options expire TONIGHT. So the rate needs to be moving NOW. Can you explain the significance of this to (like I am five)? the person who bought the calls can exercise a right to buy BTC at the strike price (17-20). So the buyer thinks that the price will be above this price (and obviously the seller does not). But it is not quite even in sentiment because a seller generally walks away happy -- he gets to sell the BTC at what is presumably a profit AND gets the price of the option (read abt covered call investment strategies). The buyer of a put has the right to sell BTC at the strike price (33-35). So some seller is VERY bullish. Except I don't understand the terminology "sell short a put"... I suppose that might mean the seller does not have the USD in his account to cover -- he only has BTC (or some other security). Selling puts is actually a very smart way to buy in a rising market. So the price is 19 USD and I sell a put for with a strike price of 34 USD. I get 15 USD and a premium on top and have the obligation to purchase 1 BTC tomorrow for 34 USD. If the price is stable or even drops a little I get to acquire my BTC without moving the market. If the price rises to less than 34 USD the holder of the puts has to buy at market in order the exercise the put and get some of his money back. This is the best scenario for the seller of the put. |
|
|
|
My solution only use GNU/Linux for Bitcoin and do not use Microsoft Windows. By the way while you only are at it only use GNU/Linux for online banking, PayPal, online credit card purchases etc.
Seriously Windows malware does not know what to do when it encounters the GNU and the Penguin.
Linux is definitely safter in many regards, but it is unavoidable to use windows sometimes, espeically I need to ssh in my Linux machine using my windows machine for may practical reasons, I am worring a keylogger/admin rights hole make the attacker get my linux password and remote in as I do, thus do anything they please. Good point. I would add that logging into my GNU/Linux server(s) over ssh as something I would not wish to do from Microsoft Windows especially when a significant portion of one's livelihood is dependent on the server(s) not being compromised. |
|
|
|
|
My solution only use GNU/Linux for Bitcoin and do not use Microsoft Windows. By the way while you only are at it only use GNU/Linux for online banking, PayPal, online credit card purchases etc.
Seriously Windows malware does not know what to do when it encounters the GNU and the Penguin.
|
|
|
|
Awesome, thanks for this. If I interpret it correctly, it seems some of the old whales are taking profit. Which is what I figured was happening around 13 anyway.
There is also the different trading patterns of consumers and merchants. Consumers buying BTC to purchase good and services are more likely to generate many small trades, while the merchants or their payment processors are more likely to generate fewer large trades. As Bitcoin gets used more in commerce one would expect small trades to dominate on the buy side and large trades to dominate on the sell side. |
|
|
|
riding the bull to its fullest extent is one of the hardest things to do in markets.
+1 |
|
|
|
|
I remember listening to the talk a year ago, and listened to it again today and my opinion of it has not changed.
If were were only making in person transactions and everyone had a credit card, then it is true Bitcoin can very little to offer. The in person payment space is very crowded and there are many old and new alternatives.
The trouble with this video is that he completely dismisses the very market where Bitcoin excels right at the start namely buying over the Internet internationally and by the way it makes no difference if the buyer is using the latest smartphone or some ancient PC. If the buyer does not have a credit / debit card or the seller does not have a merchant account (or equivalent say PayPal) then until Bitcoin came along there was no cost effective way to do business. The reality is that this is a huge market which the for the most part has been completely ignored. I gave the video a fail back then and give it a fail today for completely ignoring this huge market.
|
|
|
|
|
PayPal over TOR as an alternative to Bitcoin indicates desperation on the part of whoever wrote this article.
|
|
|
|
Because anybody can see that 0.3 --> 32 is a smaller increase than 5-->17 , right?
Actually this is not entirely true. It is more like saying 0.06 --> 32 is a smaller increase than 5--> 17. |
|
|
|
btc at 32USd was less overbought that is now
I disagree and it is not even close. |
|
|
|
lol, looks like the roughly 15k bitcoins stacked up around $20 have been moved to $99.xx. That guy is a little too optimistic, don't you think? It takes a pretty wild imagination to expect anyone paying nearly $1.5m for 15kBTCs, even in the next 5 years.
It will be interesting to see what the verdict of the market is. Was this trader too optimistic or too pessimistic? |
|
|
|
This is mentioned in https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Illegal_content_in_the_block_chainMy take is that any remaining balance in the transaction associated with the illegal content could become not spendable if clients for fear of the legal consequences do not verify that the coin associated with the illegal content is unspent. Bitcoin really needs a way to keep the blockchain and traffic at a reasonable size. One step is to purge old transactions and addresses from the chain. To keep bandwith low, something like keyframes (like in videostreams) could be added. The blockchain would contain a keyblock every x blocks which basically is a status-quo snapshot. Then a client would only need to download the latest keyblock and the blocks after that one to be up to date. Those keyblocks would, like transactions, only be valid with x confirmations of the p2p network.
The original paper already covers this. You only need 80 bytes per block to confirm a block is part of the chain. These are called the block headers. Once you have the headers for the entire chain, you can then ask for the blocks starting with the last block and working back. To verify a transaction, all you need to know is the block that the coin comes from and confirm that it is still an unspent coin. To do that, you need all blocks between the head of the chain and the transaction that created the coin. |
|
|
|
i'm not sure who's cuter; you or the krill...
Krill. I sense a hungry penguin. |
|
|
|
The issue here is one of perception (image) vs reality (substance). The perception is that a demurrage currency (Freicoin) favors the poor over the rich while a deflationary currency (Bitcoin) favors the rich over the poor. After all the rich have more money than the poor. The reality is the exact opposite. Bitcoin actually favors the poor while Freicoin favors the rich. Unfortunately we live in an age where image more often than not trumps substance so it is not surprising at all that the Occupy Movement would come up with Freicoin and be skeptical towards Bitcoin.
+1 |
|
|
|
|
I am more interested in 666 not 6.66
|
|
|
|
|
Mega relies on resellers to process retail payments. All it takes is for someone to set up a Mega reseller that takes BTC for payment.
|
|
|
|
Somehow I am a bit disappointed of Kim. After all his talk about getting rid of US dictated monopolies, like credit cards and Paypal, I at least would have expected SOME other option than that. Maybe direct bank wires or cash in mail or ANYTHING, but Paypal, Visa and Master all over again?
I'm starting to think more and more that Kim is just a stupid guy who happened to get lucky with his service. I mean he knows how to provide that service but other than that he is a moron. Actually as far as I can see this is a very smart design. Mega itself does not deal with the retail sales but leaves this to the resellers who can use any payment method they choose including of course Bitcoin. These resellers can be anywhere in the world so even if some one pays with say a credit card or PayPal, Mega itself does not get the payment information, and the end user can literally shop around for the jurisdiction with the strictest privacy laws when choosing a reseller. This also means that Mega itself collects minimal information a name (with no verification), email address and an IP address (TOR anyone?). The design also calls for distributed hosting with backups of each file in different at least two different jurisdictions. The files are encrypted and Mega itself does not have the private keys. So the only way a copyright holder will even know that there is infringing content is if the person who uploaded the content leaks the key directly or indirectly to the copyright holder. At this point I am sure Mega will honour a takedown notice provided that the copyright holder has dotted all the legal i's and crossed all the legal t's. Now user side encryption has many perfectly legal and legitimate uses such as the cloud backup of sensitive data. This whole thing looks like it has been designed by an army of lawyers in order to create a mega legal headache for the entertainment industry while at the same time being in strict compliance with the law. |
|
|
|
Eventually Mega will accept Bitcoin, it's inevitable!
It is far more likely that a Mega reseller will sell Mega vouchers for BTC. The result from a retail preservative will be as if Mega accepted BTC. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
