Of course your contributions to the topic were way more informative and more helpful for the community. I hope you still profit like a MF from the current situation...
If you have 0BTC interests He stated that he has an open short position... |
|
|
|
We have seen the ups and downs and have realized it all works out in the end.  Maybe. But it's always good to take some profit off the table, especially to recover initial investment. The long term moon scenario is not guaranteed. |
|
|
|
bears will buy back after they see nothing happens on the 31st
What bears? Although price has slid -20% in 3 weeks with no sign to the better, the bear camp is almost empty. Imagine the hooray from bull camp if the price had gone up this much in this time..  This way you know the relative numbers of each. You're delusional. The bear camp is way bigger than the bull camp right now. Mainly because of China and the Jan 31st deadline. I'm actually not sure about that. It's something bulls keep repeating (followed by the "bears will panic buy after nothing happens on the 31st" prediction), but it's not so obvious to me. |
|
|
|
I didn't know that "FUD" applied to TA. I thought it was about information and events?
Every single bearish or non-bullish comment or so called "analysis" is obvious FUD. Confirmed. Confirmed. Welcome to my ignore list. Dude. You don't need to announce it every single time. |
|
|
|
|
Pretty high volume on that bottom there (Huobi). Maybe a local bottom then.
|
|
|
|
|
Most recent headlines:
"Bitcoin users charge mainstream media with spreading FUD"
"Bitcoin users cling strongly to Austrian economics in the face of government attacks on bitcoin, citing 'guns pointed at everyone' as its principal success"
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin Foundation should do some damage control. While they're at it, kick out Karpeles' fat ass.
|
|
|
|
Whatever the case, it is not a non-story, and is not FUD. Simply put, no one knows the implications yet. According to article 27 of the Federal Law "On the Central Bank of the Russian Federation (Bank of Russia )" issue in the Russian Federation monetary surrogates prohibited.
[...]
The Bank of Russia has warned that Russian legal entities providing services for the exchange of "virtual currency" in rubles and foreign currency, as well as for goods (works,services) will be considered as a potential involvement in the implementation of suspicious transactions in accordance with the legislation on counteraction to legalization (laundering) proceeds of crime and financing of terrorism. http://www.cbr.ru/press/PR.aspx?file=27012014_1825052.htm |
|
|
|
Make it 5 people, I will add another 4000 DVC.  Bittzy78, leave me a DVC address and I'll let you handle it. Excellent !!! 1BUDY3jrYs99qvBbkQfAEtLJ9HX4yvTgid 5 winners it is Sent. Welcome to the forum all. |
|
|
|
Make it 5 people, I will add another 4000 DVC. Bittzy78, leave me a DVC address and I'll let you handle it. |
|
|
|
How many bears are FREAKIN the fuck out right about now. It's now the 24th and we are less than a week away from the dreaded 31st and for the THIRD time the market refused to go down. Lol
Depends when they were selling.  Some of the short term bears, though, sure. Probably not feeling too differently than when resistance was broken on 1/2. A mid-term bear might consider this part of the correction/consolidation, or perhaps still as part of historical wave 5 in the throw-over scenario. Personally I was freaking out because I did not think 783~ support would fall, and did not reserve much dollars for a drop to 720~ level or lower (BTC-E), which was very possible. Avg buy was underwater for a day there, was a bit of a nail biter. Have you ever lost on a trade? You seem to get nervous even when you are temporarily losing on one. Yes, of course, and realizing a loss even when you know it's the best option is not easy. I wasn't ready to consider selling at a loss yet. The downside momentum petered out here, but that was not a given, and much lower levels were possible. So yes, I was nervous, partly because I bought too much in the 780s, almost in panic. Bitcoin will surprise in both directions, to great magnitude. |
|
|
|
How many bears are FREAKIN the fuck out right about now. It's now the 24th and we are less than a week away from the dreaded 31st and for the THIRD time the market refused to go down. Lol
Depends when they were selling. Some of the short term bears, though, sure. Probably not feeling too differently than when resistance was broken on 1/2. A mid-term bear might consider this part of the correction/consolidation, or perhaps still as part of historical wave 5 in the throw-over scenario. Personally I was freaking out because I did not think 783~ support would fall, and did not reserve much dollars for a drop to 720~ level or lower (BTC-E), which was very possible. Avg buy was underwater for a day there, was a bit of a nail biter. |
|
|
|
We just had a crash and consolidation. Maybe we need another one. I don't know, but I don't want to see anybody get hurt, and nobody get's hurt if we only go up from here except the people waiting now for a lower price point with too much cash on the sidelines. I don't have a crystal ball and maybe waiting now is is good strategy, but it's good for Bitcoin if there's less volatility.
The market doesn't care if people get hurt. And the market surely doesn't give a fuck what is good for bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Good. I want it to take a longer time to reach an ATH. Because I am jobless with almost nothing. So, I can't drop a few thousand and pick up 10 or 100 coins. At these prices I can buy like 2 BTC - at lower prices I can triple that. Its a huge difference for me.
You're a dipshit. let's say you're right and it crashes and you get three coins for the rice of one now. it takes three months to recover and you've trippled up. Or you could just buy one now and the price doubles two months in a row (because nodody got spooked by the crash that didn't happen) and you've got FOUR times your buy-in. I'm not too surprised you're unemployed with little money when you display an attitude like that. And you'll never be richer than me. If it crashes, I'll just be right there buying with you. asshole. You're being completely ridiculous. Having 4x the fiat is utterly meaningless. What kind of bull are you? A long term bull wants coins, not dollars. In before you somehow find a way to make this about blaming the government. "I'm not too surprised you're unemployed with little money when you display an attitude like that. And you'll never be richer than me." -- more of the same crude bullshit. You fucking asshole. |
|
|
|
Well, he made the assertion that monopolies are impossible absent government.
Not exactly: Private monopolies start to lose market share the moment they exploit their dominant position unless the State prevents them from doing so. Even the most capital-intensive industries see competition. Virgin Galactic is a good example. OTOH, a monopoly may exist if it doesn't exploit it's dominant position, but why would we even care in that case? Competition is there to benefit consumers, not competitors.
To me it seems like he says monopolies are unlikely to exist if they cannot use rules and regulations (i.e. violence) imposed by the State to keep competitors out. And even if they did manage to get a dominant position, it can only be achieved by benefiting their customers, as opposed to by enforcing laws (violence) sanctioned by the State. So why would we care in that case? Yes: With respect to Mr. Tucker, monopolies are only possible under the State.
I agree that government is instrumental in upholding monopolies, under the status quo. That says nothing about the situation absent government. Also, as I said, I am using a more expansive definition of monopoly than simply as it relates to retail markets, but the dynamic applies to that market share in the same way that it does at the production level. To assume that the only way to achieve monopoly is by benefiting one's customers is to ignore the implications of a maldistribution of scarce resources, and the possibility of a cooperative dynamic among producers that control the production of a commodity (etc) such that cartels form. As linked earlier, it does not address the possibility of monopolies of force/violence posed by private states (landowners imposing their own law on private property, enforced with private armies) under ancap. The point here is partly that ancap theory makes no normative judgment about monopolies -- it has no moral issue with stifled competition and un-free markets. It is simply assumed that monopoly is impossible. |
|
|
|
You've done nothing to prove that monopolies are only possible under government. That's just ancap dogma.
I'm interested in this. Not quite sure who the burden of proof should fall upon here - the one claiming that monopolies are possible only with government or the one claiming monopolies are possible without government. We certainly have lots of cases of monopolies co-existing with government, but I know of no cases of monopolies existing without government. This might primarily be because we have few cases of there being no government, period. Personally I tend to think that the institutionalization of the monopoly on coercive force is quite instrumental in upholding monopolies. I can see them being created without there being a government, but don't see them lasting very long without providing excellent products/services and/or developing government-like qualities themselves. Could you perhaps point me towards some materials supporting your claim that this is just an-cap dogma? Well, he made the assertion that monopolies are impossible absent government. It seems the burden would be on him. To suggest an impossibility is also much, much more decisive and precise. My point was more so that ancap theory has no moral opposition to monopoly -- it simply assumes that a purely capitalist market won't let it happen. Certainly, governments are quite instrumental in upholding monopolies. It's interesting that you mention "developing government-like qualities" because that is indeed a suggestion. Given an uneven distribution of resources, with capital hiring its own armies, I foresee a possibility. To clarify, I wasn't talking about retail markets, though these cartel arrangements would apply to them as well. Take, for example, Tucker's "Four Monopolies". The issue is more so allocation of scarce resources, and how that can contribute to usury through monopoly in the case of borrowers, renters, workers. Yes, not a popular topic for this forum... http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/proudhon/ProudhonCW.htmlhttp://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/tucker/works.html |
|
|
|
Regarding Block, I'm fairly sure I don't misunderstand him. See his thoughts on slave contracts, or sexual harassment in the workplace. What do you think of his views? Here, you are conflating private property with ownership; that should not imply that I oppose ownership, or advocate for "state" ownership, or any such thing. Yes, I agree with Block on those views also, because the alternative is worse. The HR gestapo that polices sex harassment issues in modern work-spaces is worse. And if my Navy enlistment wasn't a slave-contract, then I don't know what one is. But this is something for another thread. The alternative? How is the only alternative government? It's as if you don't read. Okay then, I guess I'll miss the next slave auction. For reference: Consider the sexual harassment which continually occurs between a secretary and a boss . . . while objectionable to many women, [it] is not a coercive action. It is rather part of a package deal in which the secretary agrees to all aspects of the job when she agrees to accept the job, and especially when she agrees to keep the job. The office is, after all, private property. The secretary does not have to remain if the ‘coercion’ is objectionable.
That's good stuff right there. I'm not sure if you are talking generally, or if you are confused about my position. I see now that it may not have been clear. I'm an anarchist, and I don't consider ancaps to be anarchists. Even Rothbard agreed with that. Regardless, the idea of morality is a bit more expansive than "government"... I don't really care if you consider me a true anarchist or not. I'm Rothbardian and we both know what that means. I hold that the State is neither morally legitimate or necessary, but private property is. Couldn't care less if I'm in your extremely unpopular club or not. I was just clarifying the comment "speaking as an anarchist" because you seemed confused, saying that I think the state ought to control society. It seems you either don't read posts that you respond to, or simply have this gut-response thing going where you accuse people of being a statist when they disagree with you. With respect to Mr. Tucker, monopolies are only possible under the State. Private monopolies start to lose market share the moment they exploit their dominant position unless the State prevents them from doing so. Even the most capital-intensive industries see competition. Virgin Galactic is a good example. OTOH, a monopoly may exist if it doesn't exploit it's dominant position, but why would we even care in that case? Competition is there to benefit consumers, not competitors.
and if voluntary contracts don't justify everything, then you have to be saying that people do not have the right to enter into certain kinds of contracts, even if they want to do so. Who decides what types of contracts are ok? You? You think you can take away people's rights for their own good? Who are you to interfere? You think you can run people's lives better than they can? Do you have the same incentives to make the right choices? obviously you don't, even if you're sooooo much smarter and wiser than them. Such arrogance.
Not believing in property would be like claiming Bitcoin could function with two public keys and no private keys. Your'e not against bitcoin because you don't think it works. You're against it because it works too well. well, your cognitive dissonance is not my problem. Welcome to my ignore list.
You've done nothing to prove that monopolies are only possible under government. That's just ancap dogma. Actually, I fully support peoples' rights to enter immoral contracts -- I don't support a social system where people are forced to enter into such contracts through the monopolization of scarce resources. You just have blinders on so high that anyone that disagrees with you wants to "run peoples' lives." |
|
|
|
The very basest of human action can be justified under any philosophy. It's wise to see things as they are and not what you think they ought to be.
On the first point, this is patently false.
why is it patently false? I 100% agree, anything is possible. This is in the realm of moral philosophy. How does an anarcho-capitalist justify taxation? How does a communist justify private property? How does a Catholic nun justify adultery? |
|
|
|
Dude, no thanks. I wasted two years of my life espousing that morally bankrupt philosophy and that's two years I'll never get back. Speaking as an anarchist, your conclusion was not logical. It seems that you see ancap and state capitalism as polar opposites. I don't see it that way. Pushed to extremes, ancap/NAP under private property can justify the very basest of human action -- there simply are no limits under a purely capitalist paradigm. (Just ask Walter Block.) Should monopolistic dynamics arise, how genuine is the right of exit that you mentioned in rpietila’s thread? I am of the opinion that consent does not exist without viable alternatives. There are compelling reasons why mutualists and market anarchists historically opposed private property, and viewed the state as far more expansive than simply "government."
But seeing as this is a bitcoin forum, I probably shouldn't discuss this here. If you are interested in my thoughts on this subject, PM me.
Dr. Block teaches at Tulane just down the road from me. Pretty smart guy. I think you might misunderstand him. The root of our disagreement seems to be private property which you appear to be opposed to. This actually ties into the thread topic because ownership effectively meas control. Regarding Block, I'm fairly sure I don't misunderstand him. See his thoughts on slave contracts, or sexual harassment in the workplace. What do you think of his views? Here, you are conflating private property with ownership; that should not imply that I oppose ownership, or advocate for "state" ownership, or any such thing. That's the way it is, regardless of how you think it ought to be. The State cannot control society so it makes no difference if you think it should. I'm not sure if you are talking generally, or if you are confused about my position. I see now that it may not have been clear. I'm an anarchist, and I don't consider ancaps to be anarchists. Even Rothbard agreed with that. Regardless, the idea of morality is a bit more expansive than "government"... The very basest of human action can be justified under any philosophy. It's wise to see things as they are and not what you think they ought to be.
On the first point, this is patently false. On the second, how do you say this after writing out the Rothbardian boilerplate on morality? To be clear, you believe that voluntary contracts justify anything, right? I noticed you didn't address my question about what happens when monopolistic dynamics arise in an ancap society -- how meaningful is consent then? How "free" is such a market, and how ethical are usurious contracts entered into by such force of circumstance? You said you were against monopoly -- see Benjamin Tucker. The absence of government won't mean that monopolies are magicked away, and ancap theory has no problem with that. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
