I was working on design of such a system for a bit, it is currently on hold because it turned out much too extensive as a hobby project.

Think about it: you have to deal with maximum privacy attacks AND maximum money-gaming attacks by all players, including colluding users and nodes.



For all I could figure out, you'll need eCash-type banks of some optimal scale and a protocol for floating prices and trust-establishment that cannot be gamed for profit. I think it is possible but don't have the time or resources to work on it, nor a business model to profit off it, especially without going to jail as soon as people use it to launder money, trade child porn or whatever.

Personally, I believe there's more dormant power in automated banking (with trust management) than in Bitcoin. Its anonymity, efficiency and ability to perform trades directly in the system should outweigh the trouble of sporadic losses due to failing micro-banks. Trading for traffic routing is just one example application.

I started wondering whether this is serious at "bears, hold your coins".

Nice exponential trend crossing 10k USD per coin later this year.

This reminds me of updating the necropost I sometimes edit to represent how rich BS&T investors are when Pirate pays, or BurtW specifically. Today is interest day! So if BurtW really paid his "investment", Pirate would now owe him 195444 BTC.

If the trend-line above holds for one year, Bitcoin price will be 200000 USD per Bitcoin. BurtW is then owed 7546533 BTC by Pirate. This means Pirate can still make good with him by paying 1'509'306'600'000 USD at any time within the next year! Maybe with some negotiation he can even settle with 1.5 trillion!

But of course, if he waits a year longer than that, BTC prices at 200M USD a piece will make payment hard.

None of those are necessarily correct.

Simply sending Bitcoins is *not* anonymous. For example, a lot of transaction data was decoded when watching the Pirate Ponzi, linking up users -- and ultimately people -- to payments related to them. We only were able to do so because Bitcoin is the LEAST anonymous system in terms of concealing money flows. Some analyses were detailed enough to figure out contract details that were never made public outside the block chain. Tracking a single payment made to someone may help reveal his entire Bitcoin activity with time if he's not careful.

Also, the coins are valuable only because people believe in them. They weren't always and it's not an intrinsic property.

Bitcoin recipe:

• Make a big file of who owns how many coins and give it to everyone.
• A computation contest is held and won once about every ten minutes. It distributes all the coins in the beginning.
• Winners of the contest can pick changes to be included as long as the payer signed them. They can keep any fees in return.
• Spice with scripting functions.

Voilà

Then consider this a warning: change your risk management now.

With this strategy you don't have a long life expectancy. Neither you nor any human I'd know of can predict the future with high accuracy. Any day something you didn't predict can happen and you end up another failed -- dead -- speculator.

I was wondering, is there some sort of Ponzi school where you guys learn this signature stuff? Also, why is there Ponzi 101 knowledge spread over the site lol... making sure not to scam the wrong people?



Oh well. Probably too ridiculous a target for a flamewar. What the heck am I reading:


Genius business model. I also like to borrow at 1600000000% p.a. (actual number!) and then let it sit around doing nothing.

Kartellbildung und Machtkonzentration sind eigentlich zwei unterschiedliche Themen.

Ich persönlich hasse Monopole, aber wünsche Machtkonzentration. Nämlich bei denen, die am besten damit umgehen können, damit nicht ein dezentraler Haufen etwas kontrolliert, das wenige spezialisten viel besser verwalten können.

Ich würde noch weiter gehen und behaupten, dass eine hocheffiziente Gesellschaft von Menschen eine gewisse Machtkonzentration erfordert. Solange die Menschen in höherer Machtposition unter den gleichen, fairen Regeln agieren wie andere, sehe ich kein Problem.

Sicherlich ist das in Deutschland aktuell nicht gegeben, wo große Firmen durch Lobbys und rechtliche Tricks die Regeln zu ihren Gunsten verändern. Da liegt das Problem.

Das bezieht sich nun hauptsächlich auf das Kartellamt.

Was der Rest vom Staat so tut... nun ja. Die Telekom und Bahn sprechend nicht unbedingt für Effizienz der Kartellverhinderung hierzulande.

Im Gegenteil, sie haben das Patentamt und die Patentkriege erschaffen, die vielleicht mehr Schaden anrichten als das Kartellamt verhindert. Ja, das Verhindern von Monopolen und Kartellen ist wichtig, aber erstens wird es nicht korrekt ausgeführt und zweitens rechtfertigt es keine gigantische Staatsquote.

Can't tell if this is a sarcastic comment, considering the thread and subforum.



We're again at 100.0 as I type this. Humans and their love for certain numbers... skewing prices since they learned to count with fingers.

Like many speculators, I track indicators correlating with media and user activity, including the new users here on Bitcointalk.

Since some time yesterday, this count is spiking. In a rather extreme manner too. Before anyone now yells "new blood, buy buy buy!" look at this excerpt from the new user list:

spanviewana
reticmelsren
rismedddegal
prodalkalan
tergtrodfullter
dathauverin
fuekellsopho
sichtsaserco
akledirs
theofateha
lautenremez
planforcade
resdidelsent
sigbalawan
ningdergteli   
ndervicbomo
notfesingcos
diwata
malcarava
slugbiriter
prizatrigo
ancowatchti



These users registered in direct succession. It's been weird before, but I guess now we can scrap that indicator for good. Just another funky manipulation target.

TA has no clear definition.

Chart analysis should have marginal profits in an efficient market. Bitcoin is not currently an efficient market. Make of it what you will.

I'm serious, it's just that. A lot of the TA threads are Voodoo. Then again, look at Goomboo's thing and say that there's nothing to it. The conditions under which it works are hard to grasp, but at the times where it works, it works astonishingly well.

I think this is how it goes. Is people manage to temporarily break a market, there probably exists a trading method on chart patterns that makes money. Just because the people who'd usually use it can't. (For example because everyone is buying and there are no shorts --> trollolol 265 peak)

The problem with the world is not some Illuminati elite cartel. The governmental restrictions on the trade and transfer of funds cause the desire for something like Bitcoin. Store of wealth does not though, gold has very good properties in that respect (a non-arbitary, ancient standard).

Bitcoin speculation is nothing more than speculation. Just because you're wealthy you can't make some huge armed mob cede control over trade.

What is proposed in the OP is pump and dump and illegal in most jurisdictions. A player abusing media power to make something spike faces the risk of getting arrested. Also, he'd rather start with something that is currently cheap with respect to its underlying market.

A month is still somewhat short... but might be interesting.

But before that, what kind of sums is this about, given a trustworthy escrow? (Should I call in some speculators and ask about 5-digit USD bets?)

What sums, time-frames and odds are we talking about here? Are you doing different odds by strike price or rather 1:1 on current price?

I'm somewhat mid-term bearish, on the order of months. Any offers on that time-frame?

lol... if there is a bust, that's the perfect finisher. After the last bubble did such a "recovery", an 80% decline over a few months followed.

Face it, you can't speculate without speculating. It's nonsensical. A speculator should either use a statistical-systematic approach (in which "OMG FML" is no reasonable outcome) or figure out how to value a coin and act accordingly. If the number is absurdly high or low, think again, chances are the model used is wrong.

If the estimate jumps between <57 and >130 within a few days, wrong becomes seriously wrong. Sticking your head in the sand with a paper wallet permabull stance does not solve that.

lol... drawing straight lines on logscale again?

I remember seeing that approach in 2011, by which we'd be at some quadrillions of dollars per Bitcoin by now.

Leute in der Münchner Bitcoin-Gruppe. Es gibt auch 'nen Artikel, hab' den Link aber gerade nicht da. (Ist meiner Meinung nach auch nicht sonderlich lesenswert.)

Jetzt erst?

Ich weiß nicht, was genau bei Bitcoin-24 abläuft, aber die SZ demonstriert ihr Niveau doch alle halbe Nase lang. Die SZ wollte bei uns für ein Bitcoin-Spezial recherchieren, kurz bevor die Blase hochging. Dass sie es nicht vor dem peak hypen konnten schien reiner Zufall. Das Resultat wimmelte trotzdem von Fehlern, die die befragten Leute garantiert nicht verbrochen haben.

Leute, lest Economist. Ernsthaft. Es gibt einfach keinen Grund, sich mit irgendwelchen fünftklassigen Medien abzugeben wenn es vernünftige internationale Quellen gibt. Die mir bekannten Deutschen Zeitungen sind ausnahmslos Mist und haben auch überhaupt nicht den Anspruch, das zu ändern. Um das gleiche Beispiel zu nennen: der Economist hat absolut rechtzeitig eine Bitcoin-Blasenwarnung herausgegeben. Das ist weder Zufall noch Einzelfall.

Ich habe das in den absurdesten Fällen erlebt. Von der Vorhersage der Housing Bubble bis hin zu erstaunten E-Sports fans, dass eine Zeitung über so ein Thema sinnvoll recherchiert und berichtet. Von dem wirklich internationalen Blickwinkel ganz zu schweigen. Jeder, der genug Englisch kann: Lokalblätter in die Tonne schmeißen, Economist holen. Lasst die ganzen Schundblätter den freien Markt spüren.

The latter document reads that fraud is suspected. "The accusation is that he is neither willing nor able to obtain the internet-currency Bitcoin for his customers."

I don't really know the Bitcoin-24 situation. Doesn't look like anti-Bitcoin reasoning in there.

100 is more likely a psychological level than an equilibrium level. If that means anything, then that it's not a very good place to settle at.