In sum, you can attempt to get me to recognize a two bottom situation, and I am going to put my fingers in my ears and cover my eyes to such claims, especially when it continues to seem to me that we gotta attempt to consider the broader package that involves the early February bottom, too.
Umm...recognizing a double bottom is quite fruitful on this thread. Much better thing to see than burned shorts. |
|
|
|
...inspirational treatise...
You left out the part where central banks will be forced to hold BTC as reserves. A minor oversight, but I think it bears a mention. bravo sir Can you imagine the private key ownership of these government entities? I used to use a smart card at work. This was for a network used by just about everyone in the military and most of the government. They had one guy in the world that had a single key that was used to secure all of these cards. At one point, he quit. I found this out after my card shit the bed and I was waiting for 3 months to get a new card so I could get access to my computer (trust me, I really didn't care...I was still getting paid for not working). They told me that a lot of people were in the same predicament. They urged people to please turn in their cards when they left their jobs (so they could be re-used). |
|
|
|
I'm no chart expert but I've followed this thread long enough to know that a double bottom is a good thing.  So...  double bottom pics please Haven't we visited the $6k "bottom" range about 4 times in recent months? Since February, right? That is quadruple bottom. Instead of lambos, we are getting lamb bottoms? Fuck.  We hit $5.8k twice. That was the long term double bottom. The medium term (this past month) double bottom was at $6.2k. |
|
|
|
I don't think so. Governments need money to provide and maintain basic amenities such as roads, water, electricity but when the government takes tax and don't perform or underperform, then that's theft. I don't like the word corruption, I prefer theft.
What tyrannical shithole do you live in where you get your water and electricity through the government? Let me guess, your taxes pay for garbage service too? lol Reminds me of someone who asked "without taxes, how would the government provide basic services like the dentist?" |
|
|
|
This chart seems to suggest the bottom will be reached (around 70% lower from here = $1500) in mid 2019. That would not be good news. I am inclined to agree with the timing, but I think (hope!) the price will not get below $2500 Perhaps you meant $15,000? |
|
|
|
I'm no chart expert but I've followed this thread long enough to know that a double bottom is a good thing. So... double bottom pics please |
|
|
|
|
They claim I can withdraw my NMC on the 13th. And the talk is about closing the site on the 15th.
What do you want to bet there is some sort of "complication" in the 2 day window that does not allow me to withdraw my NMC?
I am willing to bet anyone 21k NMC that I won't be able to withdraw it.
|
|
|
|
|
*beep* *oop* *burp*
*I am a robot*
*fear the IRS*
*end of transmission*
*derp* *fap* *boop*
|
|
|
|
Theres a consequence of a welfare state, there is no opt out because they dont want you as a liability later. [Also it should be said those paying now are required as cash to feed old responsibilities, its not far from a ponzi which works if working population rises] Same could be said of income tax itself, it used to be you were on your own in the extremes and really it was down to communities themselves to support each other. However now anything and everything is a Federal responsibility with a cost to go with it. I think we test 6600 upper before any further action especially. Enough orders to only blip down to an older low and rise back. This graph says a bit lower for the low in a trend but I would guess later and it test up first The key thing that keeps me bullish on bitcoin and makes me never want to buy dollars with my bitcoins is this:  and this:  Our defense budget, the third largest spending item, is just over $600 billion per year. Just the interest on our debt is about to surpass that. What happens when the interest on our debt is higher than spending on anything else? Do we just raise taxes and pay it? Can you see the politician that has the balls and stands up in front of the American people and says "we're raising your taxes. Not for new schools, roads, defense or infrastructure. We're raising it to pay for overspending in previous years. You won't see one benefit from the raised taxes. And more than likely it will actually have zero impact." But how about this scenario: "Holy shit, that's a lot of debt. How about if we print the amount to cover the interest payments and use tax dollars for everything else. All in favor?" Of course, what happens when the US government is printing over $600 billion in new money each year with a $3 trillion money supply? What about when that number reaches $1 trillion? 33% inflation rates year by year. Venezuela starts to happen. Who wants to buy some of those debt based IOU dollars? Great rate at just $6300/BTC. Get them while you can. |
|
|
|
|
*beep* *oop* *burp*
*I am a robot*
*taxation is not theft if the government spends the money right*
*end of transmission*
*derp* *fap* *boop*
|
|
|
|
WARNING!!! cryptochange.io is SCAM! But...a scam with low fee. And 24/7. |
|
|
|
I believe it is possible, but what you are proposing is an off-chain private network where it is you who makes the rules.
Maybe the anti-Lightning crowd is right. A fractional banking 2.0 layer can be built on top of Bitcoin, but it would be completely different from Lightning.
It wouldn't be off-chain because it's using bitcoins. What do you mean? Lightning uses Bitcoins but it is an off-chain network layered on top. Unless you are saying that "technically" it is not "off-chain" because coins are held in a multisig address and transactions are stored locally. But would it be possible for banks to create their own "private off-chain layer" that works under their own rules? I believe it is. I see what you're saying. Yes, I meant that due to the fact that you're essentially creating a transaction between two entities it's still on chain. It just does a bit of back and forth before finalizing. I was thinking a bit more on this. I see a lot of overhead pictures of the current Lightning Network with addresses and such. Is this something that anyone can see? All of the nodes of the network? If someone were to open a channel from an address that is not in the approved list of addresses, could that node then be shut out of the rest of the network? Any coins coming from that node being "tainted". |
|
|
|
|
The takeaway here is that over the long term bitcoin will prevail even alt coins jump during bull runs. There will be less and large bull runs with adoption and thus BTC will trend toward 100% dominance.
|
|
|
|
There's not so much an issuer of the cryptofiat as basically anyone sending BTC to that single address is now able to "issue" tokens from their own address (up to the amount they "purchased"). Ah, ok, I misunderstood. I thought the issuer would sell his BTC on this address for 1 sat/1 cent, which would be exactly like Tether 
The point of the namecoin list of exchanges is so that initially the price can be set to a specific formula (ie. take the volume from Bitstamp, Bitfinex, GDAX, etc. combine and divide to get the price). The price will need to be known by everyone so that the cryptofiat can be the price of the underlying currency while still using satoshis (ie. when someone sends BTC to the initial address at $7k/BTC and 1 satoshi = $1, then everyone in the network knows that the person can issue 7k satoshis and they can ignore any further satoshis sent from that address by consensus.
Then at a trigger point the price is based on the price on the decentralized exchange (due to high enough volume). I figure the "issuers" should be given the ability to determine the price formula that is used. So let me resume the model, as I understand it now: - everybody has the right to issue currency tokens (I'll call them CFIAT for now) based on the current price, taken from the "namecoin list of exchanges", according to the satoshis he sent to the issuance address. The software would have then to prove that the issuer has issued the quantity of currency corresponding to the valid price of the moment of issuance - otherwise his tokens wouldn't be valid. - In parallel, a decentralized exchange is built up, where people can trade BTC/CFIAT via LN atomic swaps, and CFIAT/FIAT pairs via a Bisq-like protocol using LN. - Once the decentralized exchange has enough volume, a "trigger" determines that the "list of exchanges" is replaced by a decentralized price finding mechanism. I think I understand now: You hope that when the price is "liberated", the token is already so popular that there is practically no volatility anymore with respect to fiat. For example, there could be a market like I proposed here for Bitcoin, where merchants could "guarantee" a price in "cryptofiat" for a certain time e.g. 24 hours or a week. Knowing that, if there are price swings to the downside (which is the biggest risk), arbitrators could profit buying the products with "cheap coins". And there could be also emerge exchangers which always would back the token with 1 CFIATUSD=1USD for example. Still there is the problem that someone that wants to manipulate the price and has enough Bitcoins or cryptofiat tokens can do it. Not even the elaborated "stablecoin" models like BitUSD or Dai are entirely safe from this kind of attack. But it may work if there are enough backing mechanisms in place like those I mentioned in the last paragraph. Looks definitively like an interesting concept, I have to think about other possible problems. Yep. I think you got it down. I think the trigger would be something like "if volume on the decentralized exchange is higher than the volume of the largest exchange (or all of them combined), then set price to the swap price on the dex". I think if the dex is one of the largest exchanges, the difficulty to manipulate the underlying value would be pretty high. And I do believe the address that is filled with BTC will need to play a large role in maintaining stability but I'm having a hard time figuring out how to do it programatically without needing to go through Rootstock or ETH. Perhaps some sort of game theory which incentivizes the org in charge of the receiving address to maintain stability (like they charge a percentage above the price, and buy back at a percentage that it drops...thus constantly requiring the new issuance of tokens at the current price. |
|
|
|
|
Well, we did bounce off the the $6,200 price point.
If that holds we likely go back up to around $8,400 before coming back down to $6,800.
Wee.
|
|
|
|
So, if I understand right:
- There is one single issuer of the cryptofiat
- Distribution is only via LN (which makes sense, due to the low amounts of "real" BTC to be expected if 1 sat = 1 unit, e.g. 1 cent), the purchasers having to open a channel to the issuer.
Question: Wouldn't the issuer need a lot of trust for the price of e.g. 1 satoshi = 1 cent to be accepted? From my perspective, the model sounds similar to Tether at first, and he would probably need real fiat (e.g. on a bank account with regular audits ...) to back his cryptofiat, otherwise nobody would buy it.
There's not so much an issuer of the cryptofiat as basically anyone sending BTC to that single address is now able to "issue" tokens from their own address (up to the amount they "purchased"). The address could even be a burn address like 1XXXXXXXX... But I have been kicking around the idea that the address is used to fund further development or even buy back cryptofiat if the market deems it necessary. Not a single person but likely a decentralized organization of some sort with multi-sig access to the address. The control of that address could disappear (keys lost, people controlling it die off, etc.) and the system would still continue on with no disruption. Bisq would need to become LN-compatible for that to work, but I guess you know that.
I use bisq as reference but it would likely be a modified version so a user does not necessarily need to download any software (make it web based). While still being able to download software and avoid the middle man. I don't understand the concept of the "namecoin list of exchanges" and the voting mechanism. Are there multiple (centralized) exchanges involved? I thought there was initially one exchange. What do the users vote, the price or the exchange list?
This part is a bit unhashed but I believe that it will need to start small and grow (likely starting in a small country with few or no exchanges). It will start as a single server but anyone who downloads the software and wants to run their own server (exchange) can also do so. The exchange could charge fees or advertise or whatever they need to make money which allows them to enhance the user experience and advertise to draw more people in. With more volume on the exchanges they're all using the p2p in the background. It's just that the user doesn't know (or shouldn't even care). The point of the namecoin list of exchanges is so that initially the price can be set to a specific formula (ie. take the volume from Bitstamp, Bitfinex, GDAX, etc. combine and divide to get the price). The price will need to be known by everyone so that the cryptofiat can be the price of the underlying currency while still using satoshis (ie. when someone sends BTC to the initial address at $7k/BTC and 1 satoshi = $1, then everyone in the network knows that the person can issue 7k satoshis and they can ignore any further satoshis sent from that address by consensus. Since there will be such low volume initially, the price on the decentralized exchange will be too easily manipulated. But you can't just have a single issuer deciding the price to be used. So initially it will be centralized, then grow more decentralized over time. Then at a trigger point the price is based on the price on the decentralized exchange (due to high enough volume). I figure the "issuers" should be given the ability to determine the price formula that is used. Unfortunately, I don't think that will work, or I don't understand the mechanism. You are saying that a single purchase of the cryptofiat token with Bitcoin will set the price (potentially forever?)? What is if Bitcoin's price fluctuates heavily, how would the price be "rebalanced"? What if the token becomes traded at other platforms, without the fixed price, and manipulated to the upside or to the downside (something what has happened to the Steem Dollar, for example ...)?
Or are you referring to the "cryptofiat" price measured in fiat? While that would solve the first problem, the second problem (trading at other platforms) would persist. There would still be a "backing" (fiat funds controlled by the issuer) needed to establish trust on the cryptofiat token.
From your explanation, I don't see many differences to Tether - the price is set artificially, and is meant to stay at that price.
I think there is something important missing in your explanation, or something I didn't understand still, so if you want, please elaborate on that.
It certainly is like a decentralized Tether. The main problem with Tether is that it's run by a single company. They have(had) a bank account. Disruption of that single company/account can bring it all crumbling down. The Bitcoin price can (will) fluctuate no problem. When issuer X buys at $7k they get 7k satoshis. If the price jumps to $10k when issuer Y buys then they can issue 10k satoshis. Trade on other platforms is more than welcome. If it is known that 1 satoshi = $1 then not only can it just be used for exchange, it can be used in commerce. Merchants can start accepting cryptofiat alongside regular fiat. My ultimate dream would be that cryptofiat becomes so much easier to use than regular fiat that nobody uses regular fiat anymore. Banks become useless and eventually when BTC price reaches the point where 1 satoshi = $1, people will now just use their cryptofiat as bitcoins. Essentially, bitcoin has now replaced a government currency. Trust is certainly essential. I believe that if a single exchange is run like this for a while and reaches high enough volume then it will sort of prove itself. Initially it will be centralized and controlled with the mechanisms built in to grow more decentralized over time to the point where it is fully decentralized. People already trust that when they send money to an exchange that the numbers in their database correlate to their money. A lot less trust than I would give but these exchanges are trading hundreds of millions each day so obviously some people trust these database entries. |
|
|
|
I'm not liking the new crop of folks that came in this past year. They don't really know anything about Bitcoin (Satoshi? Is that some sort of seafood?). They just want to see the price go up. Maybe the government can pass a law to make the price go up. That's all that matters.  I hope the price crashes to the point that they all sell the bottom and never come back until they're paying for their bread after waiting in the bread line with bitcoins. |
|
|
|
I believe it is possible, but what you are proposing is an off-chain private network where it is you who makes the rules.
Maybe the anti-Lightning crowd is right. A fractional banking 2.0 layer can be built on top of Bitcoin, but it would be completely different from Lightning.
It wouldn't be off-chain because it's using bitcoins. |
|
|
|
I had proposed something very similar here in May, but it was only a concept, there is no work done currently on it. The idea, in a nutshell: Use the Bisq protocol for fiat-to-stablecoin trades and the BarterDEX atomic swap protocol for trade pairs of stablecoin-to-bitcoin/other cryptos. The reason for the stablecoin integration is that atomic swaps to a "stable" currency would be theoretically possible, so using the exchange to "hedge" against the fluctuations of Bitcoin's prices is possible, without having to use a centralized IOU or exchange. To "get in" or "get out" of the crypto world (cashing out to fiat or buying for fiat) without exchange price risk, Bisq is actually (imo) more suitable than to exchange volatile cryptocurrencies to fiat. One could use Ethereum-based Dai as an USD-based stablecoin, which seems to have actually most acceptance (from the more "decentralized" types). As Ethereum is supported by BarterDEX, it should be possible to adapt the swap transactions to transfer Dai-to-BTC instead of ETH-to-BTC. The only problem would be the management of "forced settlements", which are always possible in Dai if the exchange rate diverges too much from the target price. There may be an intermediate step necessary, if the stablecoin used cannot be exchanged directly via an atomic swap. For example, BitUSD seems not to support the BarterDEX protocol, if I'm not wrong. In the BitShares case one could use a combination of the internal BitShares exchange and BarterDEX; this would be however not desirable, so actually Dai may be a better option. Yes, I definitely think the Bisq to a cryptofiat would be the key thing to enable more widespread decentralized exchange. The swap from cryptofiat to cryptocurrencies is easier from there. My proposed solution (and I am currently putting together the pieces to test this out) would be: -Have a single BTC address from which you can purchase cryptofiat. Initially the price would be set and known throughout the network based on a namecoin list of exchange addresses (more on that in a bit). -The addresses that purchase the cryptofiat would be known by the network and the amount they purchased could be sent from them in colored coins, with 1 satoshi = 1 unit of the currency, to open a channel on a cryptofiat Lightning Network. -Bisq can then be used to convert fiat to cryptofiat. User can then open a Lightning channel to receive their colored coins. -With those colored coins they can easily do an atomic swap for bitcoins, or do multiple micro swaps so that someone can sell just the smallest unit possible adding up to a full purchase rather than needing one person to buy the full amount offered by another person (ie. 50 people can buy from someone offering 1BTC for 7k cryptofiat). Now back to the cryptofiat price. Initially it would be centralized. It would likely start as a centralized exchange with a website, etc. But using all of the pieces in the background. The user doesn't really even know the difference. Those that buy cryptofiat with bitcoins can start to have some input on the namecoin list of exchanges used (some sort of voting mechanism based on amount purchased and time passed). Eventually, the goal would be to set the price to the publicly known price of the last trade in the decentralized swap. But initially the volume would be too low to do so. But when that is triggered it becomes truly decentralized and unstoppable. No tokens needed, ETH not necessary, Rootstock not needed. All done by consensus through Bitcoin. The hope being that a typical user would just log into a website (or open an app), put in how much money they want to send, they get the highest rated Bisq seller for their criteria (bank, amount, location, time, etc.) and they just send their money. They see that they have money "in their account" and can now purchase bitcoins (just like on any other exchange). They purchase it and withdraw their BTC. Same in the other direction. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
