I had a quick look, but couldn't see much without registering and logging in. Does Hashnest/Bitmain provide proof of mining (it's easy to imagine that they have access to Bitmain miners, but proof is another thing)?

Sad to say, but not currently lying, stealing or cheating isn't good enough - most cloud mining ops seem to have behaved OK at some point

Yeah, I had high hopes for cloud mining but it seems that they're all ponzis/HYIPs. Are there any that offer proof of mining? Better still, are there any where hash power can be traded on external exchanges? (I kinda thought that cex.io was going to do that - allow trading of hash power from other cloud mining sites - but it didn't, is that correct?)

Yes, you've said that already. But why? Why do you feel it is the most possible condition to reach 18k? I'm trying to work out whether you put any thought into that statement, or if it's just a wild-assed guess. I'm tending towards the latter.

So, is under one million US dollars sufficient to sustain the global retail sector? It seems to me that you're saying that 18k is impossible, unless there's some hidden message that I've missed?

Sure, you said we'll reach USD 18k when there's only 50 BTC and all the shops need BTC. I imagine the world won't end at that point, and Bitcoin will continue to develop. I'm just curious why you believe we'll need the conditions you listed to reach USD 18k.

If a rise depends on hype creating artificial demand - that's pretty depressing. I hope there is a rise, but one driven by fundamentals, not hype.

You're saying that USD 900k (50 * 18k) is sufficient to service the global retail sector?

Well played, sir, well played!

And congratulations to Satoshi Ōmura for sticking it to those roundworms.

It still has all those benefits - Gemini isn't going to fundamentally change what BTC is.

For me, Gemini opening is like US (institutional and private) investors having access to Luxembourg funds managed by a US asset management firm - there's nothing to stop little people (us) dealing direct with Luxembourg firms (or buying European stocks directly), but for larger investors it gives the comfort and security of dealing with a firm headquartered in the US. (I picked Luxembourg because it seems to be where US big finance sets up funds, even if their European bases tend to be in other European cities, but I could probably have used Singapore, Tokyo, Hong Kong etc as examples too).

This is basically like USD and Eurodollars. CNY is domestic (i.e. mainland China), CNH is international (including Hong Kong and Macao SARs).

I'm getting used to seeing statements like "High volatility would make traders happy / low volatility ... traders won't be happy", but it's surprising when the people making such statements are advertising a derivatives exchange in their signature. There are plenty of commodities with volatility lower than BTC, yet traders still manage to trade successfully. Low volatility is not something traders should fear (or, to be fair, expect to last forever), particularly now that there is a developing market for BTC derivatives (Gemini, Quedex are imminent, and there's at least one other already trading that I probably don't need to mention!)

Why USD5000? I'm familiar with - and tend to agree with - the argument for "zero-or-hero". Anything in between just seems somewhat arbitrary.

Trolling? I think the clue was in two mutually exclusive things happening simultaneously.

More importantly, with markets for BTC derivatives developing and maturing, low volatility can now be traded as well. I've done better trading low volatility than trying to trade high volatility. I believe low volatility is beneficial to all of our community - not just traders like us, but non-traders using BTC as well. What drew me to Bitcoin initially was a then-recent experience of receiving a salary in one country, in one currency, while paying a mortgage in another country, in another currency. That's more comfortable when volatility is low, and I imagine businesses selling products for BTC would feel much the same.

I'm not convinced that this is sound advice. Personally, I think USD5000 is possible (I think much higher is possible, I don't think USD 100k is far-fetched) but it's possible - not guaranteed. The advice I'd give is "invest only what you can afford to lose".

Wait... are you saying that since some members have received payments that scrypt.cc is paying its members properly? Does some members receiving payments trump some members not receiving payments? What proportion of "receiving" to "not receiving" is required to make scrypt.cc clearly trustworthy/untrustworthy (in your opinion)?

Edit: and why do you think the "PSAs" frequently include the advice to keep requested withdrawals below a certain threshold (e.g. 0.05 BTC)?

Quoted! I'd suggest making sure you can sign using that address - not every address can be used for signing, and it'd be better to find out now rather than when you need it!

I sympathise - sorry about your loss No matter the size of the loss, it's still painful knowing realising you're a victim.

I'm going to quote this the next time some clown questions why this thread needs regular PSAs warning potential "investors".

Do signature campaigns include posts in the off-topic section?

15 years (time's moved since Satoshi said that). And (not unreasonably) extrapolating price from transaction volume. But if we're to see "no volume" in 15 years we'd presumably expect to see a trend toward that, rather than transaction volume and price suddenly hitting zero.