Recently, Bitcoin market cap (i.e. total value of all Bitcoins issued) reached the $2 billion mark, surpassing small countries like Liberia and Guinea.
This should have been obvious.
isn't it $20 billion? The authority for this is http://www.coinometrics.com/bitcoin/bmixGo to the bottom of the page and select Full Data Table Bitcoin is currently 71 in the world (out of 191 countries) between azerbijan and lithuania burma at 12 million? okay, who wants to go in with me and buy burma? Hmm, you know what, that's actually an interesting proposition. It's probably hard to buy a country using national fiat currencies, no matter how rich you are, but with bitcoins... you just might be able to do it (i.e., pay out the government + military to leave the country / hand over control). Maybe we will see a brave new world of corporations taking over nations now that they have a financial vehicle with which to do it. I know these comparisons are tongue-in-cheek, but just for those who are confused as far as I can figure you couldn't buy a country for its GDP. I mean, even if you COULD buy a country... you couldn't buy it for its GDP. It wouldn't cost that little. That would be like buying a company for its earnings. But as we all know stocks trade for a PE multiple. Makes sense because you are buying ALL future earnings output, not just one year. So I think a PE of 10 would be ok esp. for these underperforming countries... So Burma could go for 120million... that's way too... well... hmm... These comparisons are monetary base: cash in circulation. So Burma's $12 billion is a fraction of GDP and that is a fraction of national assets. Also coinometrics uses data from the CIA factbook, which clearly has major issues, probably produced by CIA chair-polishing nitwits - as the UK monetary base is shown to be the size of Belgium's which is like saying North Dakota has as much money as New York. |
|
|
|
It's hard to understand why NMC is traded heavily at all. Isn't it just for websites? With all that trading you'd think there are 1000s websites poping up every day. Can anyone point me to even see an NMC site.
http://dot-bit.org/How_To_Browse_Bit_DomainsLet us know how you get on. |
|
|
|
Epic fail by a top blogosphere economics writer. "Bitcoins don’t serve any useful purpose."http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2013/11/bitcoins-get-out-while-gettings-good.htmlGonzalo Lira has long been happy to point out in detail the disastrous meltdown that is fiat money, central banks, the bankster complex. Yet the most powerful solution to this mess passes straight over his head. He can't see that an incorruptible store of value has any purpose, that sending money point-to-point anywhere in the world has any purpose, that all the advanced escrow/mutisig features which could revolutionize commerce have any purpose. He can't see that transferring $147 million in the blink of an eye without intermediaries or counterparty risk, with negligible fees, has any purpose! He has been predicting hyperinflation of the US dollar year after year, and yet he can't see that money pouring into Bitcoin is the market predicting the ultimate hyperinflation of many currencies. He needs to totally rethink cryptocurrency, or drown in ignominy. |
|
|
|
concern of a "downward spiral of transaction fees"?
If blocksize isn't scarce at all why not include every transaction that pays at least 1e-8 BTC which you've already received and validated? If it's purely orphaning that influences your decision why won't all your spending go to bandwidth (neutrino links to other miners and such  ) and none to POW? etc. You gotta limit blocksize at some level. Otherwise it's probably just too easy to release ridiculously large blocks which fork the blockchain. That's what I used to think too. However, the system is self-stabilizing, ridiculously large blocks which fork the blockchain will find themselves orphaned. If unlimited size is too worrying then the simplest safety net would be max block size = 10x median block size during previous 2016 blocks or previous difficulty period. |
|
|
|
Thanks, I was just looking at the data and it seems. - We've had about 14 hours of trading where the weighted average price was between $1100 and $1199.
- We've had 80 hours of trading where the weighted average was a price of $800-899
- We've had 180 hours of trading where the weighted average was between 200 and 300.
. I'm not a statistician but I'm curious if the hours of trading at a particular price should be noted at all when looking at total volume for a certain price level? You will see this pattern naturally with Bitcoin price ranges because it is growing exponentially: Here are some price points with logarithms (× 8 for convenience):
Price Log Months
100 14.0 3
200 16.1 2.1
300 17.3 1.2
400 18.2 0.9
500 18.9 0.7
600 19.4 0.6
700 19.9 0.5
800 20.3 0.4
900 20.7 0.4
1000 21.0 0.3
So, let's say that bitcoin spent 3 months in the 100s. It will only spend 2 months in the 200s and it will spend about 5 weeks in the 300s.
Next, it will spend 1 month in the 400s and 3 weeks at 500 and 600.
Then it will spend less than 2 weeks each at 700 and 800 less than a week at 900.
So, yes, every $100 point will be faster than the last. This is to be expected. Not "OMG! It's going too fast! Crash imminent! SELL SELL SELL."
|
|
|
|
Get ready ladies... Gox is about to take off.
Which way? Up. It has just built another launchpad onto the stack of used launchpads. |
|
|
|
The only worry I have is we're a market rather than an economy. We need to make 2014 the year when bitcoin destroys western union and is much more widely accepted for buying stuff. Remittance is the killer app.
What if Western union installed Bitcoin ATM's in every shop? Fully agree. They need to do something quickly or they will be in major trouble because Bitcoin overlaps their core business model. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=321719.0Western Union share price Oct 29th : $19.24 Western Union share price Nov 29th: $16.67 Ch00 Ch00 in reverse  ooch ooch! |
|
|
|
This is HUGE. UK Channel Island (tax haven) Alderney plans to produce physical bitcoins in partnership with the Royal Mint (which produces UK coinage) Alderney looks to cash in on virtual Bitcoins with Royal Mint realityhttp://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4903fc9a-591f-11e3-a7cb-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2lvy0AnuxAn unbelievable vote of confidence in Bitcoin. Might not happen, but they are looking at providing exchange services too. |
|
|
|
|
The frenzied hypegasm of Bitcoin continues.
Last Week >$1000
Next Week >Gold oz.
|
|
|
|
 BTC-China & MTGox in sync for the last 10 hours Nice This is perfect markets in action. A rare event. Both china and gox have zero fees so the arbitrage bots are working at their best. |
|
|
|
|
Ghash.io and ASICminer both still observing the 256KB default. Anyone know if they will increase this soon?
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is backed by its blockchain which is backed by the enormous computing power of the miners.
|
|
|
|
on top of this i just saw someone post about a major Chinese state owned telecommunications company that started accepting btc on a previous page, $10000 is coming
So is winter. Aw, shit... I just looked out the window. Looks like 10K   who, what is that face? |
|
|
|
Please excuse my Question but what are those: 1e-8
in the mtgox ask/bid sales list.
Satoshi orders. Just ignore them. |
|
|
|
|
The btc/fiat fx rate volatility is present only during Bitcoin's exponential growth phase. When adoption plateaus (5 or 10 years??) then prices will be very stable, far more so than the current fiat system where they increase all the time, or unexpectedly because of commodites markets and international trade imbalances caused by unreliable fiat currencies.
In a cryptocurrency future prices will decline slowly as the world economy grows and technological improvements to products occur. This is how it should be, because improved living standards for everyone result.
|
|
|
|
I was talking with Glenn on twitter, mainly to commend this excellent article. The systemic strain on the blockchain right now due to sheer volume of transactions is the biggest barrier to widespread adoptance, but it's definitely something that is in the works right now to be fixed.
There are those that say, "well, payment processors will just accept zero-confirmation transactions and accept counter-party risk", which is one path that BTC can follow as it becomes more widely adopted by merchants, but as Glenn points out in the article, the danger posed by 'oligopolies' of mining cartels is the de facto centralization of Bitcoin, which poses the greatest risk in my opinion.
Glenn did a fantastic job. There are hundreds of threads on this forum which detail the risks. I think the main areas to consider are: a) Scalability with the block size constraint, bandwidth requirements for non-mining nodes. b) Mining concentration with excessive hosted mining. c) Point-of-sale limitations. Each of these is soluble to a certain degree. I think it is very significant that the debate is shifting from Bitcoin "ponzi/scam" to "under pressure". This is constructive as real problems usually have real solutions, especially when the atmosphere is calmer. I remain very optimistic. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
