Will this not inevitably lead to a rapid price drop?
Cough, Mastercoin. Yeah, Mastercoin has been a nightmare for investors. To date it is 1000% of the buy-in price. I was really expecting a much higher return performance than that. I should have bought Dogecoin. What was I thinking? Price development after public trading (on exchanges!) is what Im getting at in case you didnt guess it. Also Facebook must have been a real doozie for Mark Zuckerburg and friends but the IPO still zucked. http://coinmarketcap.com/msc_90.htmlSure, to have a nice returns you need to be one of the very first in. I myself bought at IPO (0.01) and sold two times: once at 0.23 and the other at 0.2. It must suck to be the guy who bought at those prices. Without mentioning the "buymastercoin" scam who was advertised on the main MSC website, the guy had the guts to sell the MSC at +0.5 and noobs bought from him. Nice way to scam and to 50-fold your money in the blink of an eye. Most of those that didn't participate in the MSC IPO but bought afterwards have been assraped. |
|
|
|
25K BTC volume on Bitcoinbuilder.
the owner of that website is making MILLIONS just by having a website and "guaranteeing" the trades. He processes them manually. He makes 2% on each trade, on both sides of the trade. Even for bitcoin standards, this is an astonishing easy way of becoming a fucking millionaire. I bet he is praying for Gox stalling the situation indefinitely  |
|
|
|
I'm suprised there haven't been more of these types of walls all along. They used to be normal, and then disappeared in July. The mtgox orderbook used to have 200K COINS on it during bear markets. Bitstamp currently has only roughly 20K coins. If Bitstamp is becoming the major exchange and then rest of the exchanges are either dying off or being proven to have fake volume, then I should expect bitstamp to be at least somewhat more like mtgox used to be. For example 80K coins on the book might be appropriate.
coins are worth 10x what they used to be.... This statement (in and of itself) is not enough to tell me why there would be less coins on order books. The value of the coins does not change the amount of coins in circulation. Look at this chart (green and yellow): In both corrections of 2012 and in the correction of 2013, there were the same amount of coins on the book, even though the value was increasing by 5x each time. It would probably be similar in 2011 if I could find that too. Now look at 2014. Suddenly there is an order of magnitude less coins. I would attribute this to exchange diversification and gox dying (this started all the way back in June 2013). However, if Bitstamp is becoming the biggest and most well respected exchange then it should have more than 20K. Even with exchange diversification , Bitstamp should have at least 50K. In any case, the valuation of the coins is an irrelevant argument.  In early 2011 it was not uncommon to see a single 200k coins wall - in 2012 a 20k wall was so common that nothing below that amount was even considered a "wall". Right now 1k coin is considered a "wall" - albeit a small one - and rightfully so, as the value of the coins has skyrocketed. You also seem to forget tht in 2011, 2012 and 2013 MtGox was THE exchange - Gox handled 90% of the market. Now Gox is 30/40% of the market at best, therefore to have a more accurate figure of the total coins on sale and compare it to the past you should add Bitstamp's and Gox's order books. |
|
|
|
THAT 5k coins wall on Bitstamp...  |
|
|
|
|
Gox is making a huge amount of fees during the manic trading that has been going on since the BTC withdrawal issue.
Especially in BTC. Karpeles is smiling.
Pigs are being slaughtered very hard this time. GoxBTC at $100ish was a HUGE deal. I really cannot understand those who sold near double digits.
|
|
|
|
GoxBTC is superior to GoxUsd - no doubt about it. |
|
|
|
I just learned a story about a 'bitcoin investment fund' in a certain Latin American country. The fund took several thousand coins from clients, promising large returns in BTC. Then the owner claimed that the fund had been hacked an all the coins were stolen, and closed the fund. The clients have not yet received their coins back.
What makes the story interesting is that that same person is the owner of that country's main bitcoin exchange. And his clients see nothing wrong with that.
Why is there so much tolerance to dishonesty in the bitcoin community?
Are you speaking about Mercado Bitcoin in Brazil, right? Well, I personally know the people involved and you are just making wild assumptions. AFAIK the theft of the fund money happened indeed - and the owner of the fund is the OLD owner of the exchange, not the actual one. He sold it. So, you are reading stories in a forum, confusing them for hard cold facts and then making assumptions. Well done, professor. You are embarrassing yourself again. About your stupid rhetorical question:in the Bitcoin community there is no more tolerance to dishonesty than in the "fiat community" (lol). HSBC employees and management can calmly walk down the streets without fearing to encounter an angry mob ready to hang them from a tree (same thing is valid for any of the investment banks that made millions of people poorer after the 2008 crisis), Berlusconi has ruled 20 years in Italy while all the population knows he is a thief and probably a "wise guy", the management of the Spanish banks that ruined the country and that had to be rescued with public money is walking away with multi-million bonuses while nobody says nothing, and the vast majority of financial criminals (even the convicted ones) are admired and called "sir" by their neighbors. This is capitalism, Mr Steffi, and there's always tolerance to making a lot of money, regardless of the means. |
|
|
|
|
OP: you are either trolling, mentally challenged or you are simply trying to steal some Bitcoins that do not belong to you.
I personally believe it is the latter.
|
|
|
|
|
Severance26: Gox has an European branch, registered in Warsaw. When you send a SEPA deposit to Gox you are sending the money to MtGox Poland Inc Sp.z.o.o, which is NOT a Japanese company but a polish one, with a bank account in a LOCAL bank. Mizuho or Japan NET are not involved at all in SEPA deposits and transfers.
|
|
|
|
|
Severance26: I'm sorry, but you got it wrong on many levels:
- big corporations DO more transfers than Gox on a daily basis. What about stock brokers? Forex exchanges? Wealth management businesses? Please, be serious.
- the Polish bank is not an "intermediary" bank. It is the main and only bank for SEPA deposits and SEPA withdrawals.
- that "shady exchange" located in "eastern europe" uses Unicredit, a MAJOR international bank. SEPA withdrawals take 2/3 days, not weeks. Big withdrawals too by the way, 5/6 figures no problem. And their volume is comparable to Gox.
- the name of its "unnamed CEO" is Nejc Kodric and that's public knowledge. Check his LinkedIn.
Again: all these delays just mean that Gox is in deep deep shit. Believing they are thieves is kinda stupid given their history, but believing that everything is OK and the risk is negligible is also terribly stupid and naive. Probably Gox is suffering LE harassment because of their past position as "the exchange" during the Silk Road time, probably they made bad choices and some mistakes too. Thinking all that is irrelevant "because they made SO much money in the past" is, again, incredibly naive.
|
|
|
|
Ditto for the claim that Governments cannot stop bitcoin.
It must be a semantics issue which you're hung up on with regard to this issue. Governments cannot stop Bitcoin. They can ban it or otherwise criminalize it but that won't stop it from being used. I guess the only way we'd know is to give it a whirl. My definition of "success" is "it is used by many people for ordinary payments because it is cheaper/faster/safer than using a bank or credit card". That will not happen if it illegal to use it. Since december, even a foreign tourist cannot pay for a hotel bill or meal in China with bitcoin. So the bitcoin project is already dead in China. The Chinese government still allows trading inside the exchanges only because they feel that it is harmless. If they saw a threat there, they could easily close the exchanges, and block access to the network if necessary. Again, I do not see how the blockchain could be maintained if the US government decided to ban bitcoin. You really understood nothing on Bitcoin if you thought that its success depends on a random Chinese being able to pay for his meal with it. Nothing. First, Bitcoin was never meant to be a system with which consumers all over the world recurrently pay for meals or other day by day expenses. It simply does not scale. Remember it is blockchain based, and thus "heavy" and relatively "slow". Many people in the world are not able to pay for their meals with gold: so what? Secondly, the revolutionary aspect of Bitcoin is that it CANNOT be killed. You see how hard has tried the US to kill torrent, and how that played out? Even if there is a global ban, the protocol cannot be blocked effectively, (everybody should already be running Bitcoin through Tor anyway), and even if "they" (banks and govs) manage to destroy the last exchange on earth, OTC would still happen and probably a big part of the global black market would embrace Bitcoin as a consequence of this global ban. Bitcoins would still hold a value - we all know what kind of markups we have on illegal things. Bitcoin's core values (decentralized and trustless) would remain un scattered in this global ban scenario . You seem to do not understand the huge implications of these two core characteristics of this game changing technology. In these times of surveillance, globalization and centralization, a technology like Bitcoin will simply NOT go away because it is SO important and SO empowering. Probably the difference between you and us is that you are thinking in purely economical terms. Even in that case, it's pretty strange that you compare Bitcoin to a Ponzi or a bubble when there has been NO ponzis and NO bubbles in history that have behaved like Bitcoin. That argument could have been valid in mid-2011, now it's just a ridiculous way to embarrass yourself. Shoe me a "bubble" which have gone through three phases as Bitcoin did, with similar appreciation and deflation in each one of the phases, and I might listen. You will find none, because that's not how bubbles/ponzis work: they go up uP UP until they crash flat to the floor, to never recover. But remember, Bitcoin is much more than a speculative vehicle or a micro-payment network. Bitcoin is freedom, and it's also a way to say fuck off to the establishment, regardless of the regulations/bans that might been put in place. Don't underestimate that. |
|
|
|
I think Jorge's point that logical systems are brittle is well-taken. They are also robust, within their domain. Some are provably correct. Others have extensive stress testing which gives us high confidence in them. Many are not provably correct. Many have little stress testing. Often even very well designed systems have usability flaws which increase the likelihood of operator error resulting in risk or outright harm.
All of which is completely off-topic, but then this is the de facto off-topic thread, and I resemble that remark.
In any case, the primary point I take from that discussion is that one should try to cover for other's errors, in order to be an effective cooperator.
Well, I kinda feel bad now for being so harsh with Jorge - he really seems a nice guy, and for sure its much better to have him in here than the other thousands trolls that are flooding this forum since October. What is kinda annoying of him IMO is that he clearly has a lack of understanding of fundamental things linked to Bitcoin, and instead of silently reading and learning what was discussed in the past and try to complement that, he just spits the same old arguments that have been discussed (and debunked) thousands of times before. Practical example: the "ponzi scheme" thing. We already had an intellectual/economist on the forum who explained us many times and with Jorge's very same words how Bitcoin was a ponzi on the verge of collapse: his moment of glory was during the crash of 2011, and he went to great lengths to explain how Bitcoin was a zero-sum game in which early adopters were assraping late adopters. He cheered with joy during the crash from $32 to $2, but we all know how that played out: the "bag-holders" as he called them (did you think you invented that word, Jorge?) are now holding a bag worth hundreds of times more it was worth during this infamous character's rants. The name of this guy is John Nagle, and you can find his profile here and here a nice web with which he embarassed himself. And BTW, Mr. Stelfi: please point to us an example of a ponzi scheme which has seen 3 different "boom and bust" cycles in which price deflated as much as it did with Bitcoin, to then recover in such a way as Bitcoin did. Just FYI: 2011: $32 to $2 (-94%) mid-2013: $266 to $50 (-81%) late 2013: $1242 to $400ish (-68%) Maybe because BTC is not a "zero-sum game", or a "ponzi" or a "bubble", despite that's what its critics have said of it from its very inception. Maybe there's much more to it than its mere utility as money, maybe (and only maybe) the distributed blockchain is the promise of a revolution that brings an increased freedom for the people. I'm afraid that to see that you probably have to look deeper into it. |
|
|
|
He did not store his one-time-pad which was on the hard-drive that was later formatted. Or at least did not mention it.
Yes. The point of that "stupid joke" was to point out how easily a tiny mistake can turn a strong security scheme into an epic disaster. The mutlibillion-dollar accident at Three Mile Island began with a faulty safety valve in a redundant part of the cooling system. The "tiny mistake" was that the corresponding light in the control panel did not show whether the valve was actually closed, but only whether it had been commanded to close. I am sure there are better examples in computer security but I don't recall one right now. This is just mental masturbation. Do you need to secure a lot of bitcoins, while still operating recursively with them? THEN YOU USE ARMORY. It's built for that, and it's idiot-proof. Your private keys are backed up by n-of-M paper backups, and you can operate easily by: - creating the transactions online
- signing them offline
- broadcasting the signed transactions from the online system
What you have written is just pointless. I guess you have too much time to lose, and instead of learning by READING you want to learn by participating in here. |
|
|
|
|
On a serious note: why there isn't yet a "Hitler got his coins stuck on Gox" video? Where is Vladimir when we need him?
|
|
|
|
Today on #bitcoin gmaxwell: wumpus: yea, I understand they had timed automatic reissues... Sad this was also something I didn't know prior to monday before last and is one of the other reasons my "they couldn't have lost much!" position softened to "I have no freeking clue." alpha125: gmaxwell: where did you find out abotu the automatic reissues? gmaxwell: alpha125: from mtgox staff and magicaltux ... I had assumed previously that any reissues were manual via customer support but apparently it was just timed. gmaxwell: you'll also note that they've kept increasing their fees and then even mad paying fees mandatory. gmaxwell: This suggested to me that they totally misunderstood their problems. (and— I reported that I believed this months ago too) gmaxwell: e.g. they noticed lots of txn getting stuck, they didn't understand it was because they were producing invalid txn (even though it was reported to them) and so they thought it was just 'full blocks' gmaxwell: and they increased their fees from 0.0001 to 0.0005 — which was enough to may more than virtually every txn— and then later to 0.001 which is basically astronomic. And then they made it mandatory. gmaxwell: of course their stalled txn had nothing to do with fees. Edit: Just to clarify, only quoted relevant parts (maybe I should have inserted "[...]" where applicable). Full text here: http://pastebin.com/DaSph9uTthat and its an unverified pastebin I can verify that pastebin. I witnessed that discussion live on #bitcoin (Freenode). It's legit. |
|
|
|
The banking limits aren't unbelievable- if you live in Japan. Its standard bureaucracy. And the 5% is likely not a withdrawal at all, but a fiat to fiat transfer through a regular bank which charges them for it (though there is obviously a percentage in it for them as well). And when a bank is forced to submit reports on incoming transfers over $10k USD (in the US) to regulatory agencies, they also aren't allowed to tell the customer they are doing so (this is a fact). So EVERYTHING is a delay EVERYWHERE.
What about SEPA withdrawals coming out from Gox's Polish bank? Why 6 weeks delay? If reporting every transaction above $10k causes so much delay, why I can wire 50k EUR to MtGox and I get them credited in 2, 3 days max.? Why the huge delays affect only outgoing and not incoming transfers? It doesn't add up. Other exchanges have no problems with "banking limits". |
|
|
|
Repost for visibility: Today on #bitcoin gmaxwell: wumpus: yea, I understand they had timed automatic reissues...  this was also something I didn't know prior to monday before last and is one of the other reasons my "they couldn't have lost much!" position softened to "I have no freeking clue." alpha125: gmaxwell: where did you find out abotu the automatic reissues? gmaxwell: alpha125: from mtgox staff and magicaltux ... I had assumed previously that any reissues were manual via customer support but apparently it was just timed. gmaxwell: you'll also note that they've kept increasing their fees and then even mad paying fees mandatory. gmaxwell: This suggested to me that they totally misunderstood their problems. (and— I reported that I believed this months ago too) gmaxwell: e.g. they noticed lots of txn getting stuck, they didn't understand it was because they were producing invalid txn (even though it was reported to them) and so they thought it was just 'full blocks' gmaxwell: and they increased their fees from 0.0001 to 0.0005 — which was enough to may more than virtually every txn— and then later to 0.001 which is basically astronomic. And then they made it mandatory. gmaxwell: of course their stalled txn had nothing to do with fees. Edit: Just to clarify, only quoted relevant parts (maybe I should have inserted "[...]" where applicable). Full text here: http://pastebin.com/DaSph9uTAgain, as its been said OVER and OVER in this thread: - this is not about Karpeles "running away" with customer funds. Betting on Gox's honesty is a pretty safe bet, as Gox has proven its integrity for years
- this is about facts adding up and raising a lot of red flags: i) absurd explanations on unbelievable banking limits, which affect outgoing transfers only; ii) serious problems with LE ($6M seized) and other players (Coinlab - $6M gone) which resulted in loss of funds; iii) lack of transparency in their PR and possible incompetence in managing their business; iv) desperate moves to raise more and more fees (totally unjustified 5% "ransom fee" - 5% is a huge amount, folks; not halting trading when they have should; etc.)
When you add all that and you analyze their press releases, you can see that something very wrong is happening, and they are not being transparent with it. Despite of sturle's efforts to explain the unexplainable, the above facts remain. Anybody who works with banks on a regular basis knows that the "daily limit" is UTTER BULLSHIT, if you have some kind of limit (which normally YOU DON'T), you just adjust it to your volume - if you need to make a freaking $3M transfer, you do it and your bank charge you for it - that's their business model folks. If they aren't, that's because Gox (or their bank) is struggling with something, and that is RISKY. Furthermore, numbers DO NOT LIE. The huge spread we have witnessed between Gox and the others comes for a reason. Sturle tried to convince us that he was making loads of money doing arbitrage, implying that the spread existed only because people is stupid and was not using the situation to their advantage because of fear, uncertainity and doubt. But let me tell you something: that's BS. Markets do not work that way. If there is a 20% arbitrage opportunity, which basically means "free money", arbitrageurs will take the opportunity and the gap will close almost instantly. If that doesn't happen, it is because it is simply not possible. I tried myself, for Christ sake, and I failed miserably because you cannot simply do arbitrage in such a volatile market if your funds are stuck on one of the ends FOR WEEKS. Making a long story short: we are getting close to the tipping point. Will see what happens soon - but its not looking good. Anybody saying that Gox/Karpeles are thieves, etc. is just a noob or has a hidden agenda to push. But the fact remains: due to incompetence, legal pressure or whatever other reason not related to Gox's honesty, customers funds are at risk - and they have been for +10 months now. There has been plenty of time to get out, folks. In any case, now its time either to cash in huge winnings (eg. -> buying $100 coins on Gox) or to swallow a loss. Whatever happens, there has been PLENTY of information for everybody to make their choice. |
|
|
|
Ok so what is so bad about the fact that Bitcoin now uses ASIC's that has everyone using Scrypt or other ASIC protected code? Is it because they don't want to have to invest the cash for Bitcoin, or is there another reason that seriously disrupts the effectiveness of Bitcoin. I understand they say it centralizes Bitcoin, but as the price rises the whales will get out earlier because they got in earlier so centralization doesn't seem to be a problem to me. What is it? Why use Scrypt?
ASIC's are a very important step towards mining centralization. That's it. |
|
|
|
also sitting around with their hoodies up in japan looks super sketchy.
This was funny, care to elaborate? Maybe the usual custom in Japan is to wear only a t-shirt while its freezing cold and snowing like Karpeles does? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
