maybe pirate is just a front for banks/governments/people who would destroy btc?

[commonancestor]

In case of volatility the traders should buy low and sell high (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101668.0). They will make profit, while the ones causing volatility will make loss.

But yes, we've seen both buy panics aka. bubble starts, and sell panics aka. bubble bursts. People should learn to see what's it really worth, instead of sentiments "now everyone buys" / "now everyone sells".

[flipperfish]

In case of volatility the traders should buy low and sell high (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101668.0). They will make profit, while the ones causing volatility will make loss.

But yes, we've seen both buy panics aka. bubble starts, and sell panics aka. bubble bursts. People should learn to see what's it really worth, instead of sentiments "now everyone buys" / "now everyone sells".

This...


...will take a long time. 

[paulie_w]

In case of volatility the traders should buy low and sell high (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101668.0). They will make profit, while the ones causing volatility will make loss.

But yes, we've seen both buy panics aka. bubble starts, and sell panics aka. bubble bursts. People should learn to see what's it really worth, instead of sentiments "now everyone buys" / "now everyone sells".

This...

...will take a long time. 

that's _exactly_ my point. especially given all of this building regulation and lockdown of control of all things digital, i'm not sure if it's something that should really be risked.

i would also like to state that reducing the fiat-conversion value of the currency (probably) reduces the number of miners, which (probably) makes the 51% problem even more of a risk.

@markm the games/virtual worlds' currency concept is interesting, and believable as a possible bridge in light of "near zero" fiat conversion value.

[markm]

@markm the games/virtual worlds' currency concept is interesting, and believable as a possible bridge in light of "near zero" fiat conversion value.

Actually it seems like the most famous ones only keep it near zero by massive, rampant inflation. (WoW gold, Lindens, EVE isks...)

Take a look at http://galaxies.mygamesonline.org/digitalisassets.html sometime...

-MarkM-

[paulie_w]

@markm the games/virtual worlds' currency concept is interesting, and believable as a possible bridge in light of "near zero" fiat conversion value.

Actually it seems like the most famous ones only keep it near zero by massive, rampant inflation. (WoW gold, Lindens, EVE isks...)

Take a look at http://galaxies.mygamesonline.org/digitalisassets.html sometime...

i wish i could understand what i am seeing here. care to explain?

[modrobert]

I think there is a much cheaper way to influence Bitcoin compared to destroying it by trade.

Just lean on the lead developers, push them towards implementing new features no one really wants, which in small steps would move away from the current core concept of Bitcoin where control is with the user.

[istar]

I think there is a much cheaper way to influence Bitcoin compared to destroying it by trade.

Just lean on the lead developers, push them towards implementing new features no one really wants, which in small steps would move away from the current core concept of Bitcoin where control is with the user.

Cheaper? He got the coins for free. Would even make a huge profit, if the amount of coins is true. Which I doubt.

[Serenata]

I think there is a much cheaper way to influence Bitcoin compared to destroying it by trade.

Just lean on the lead developers, push them towards implementing new features no one really wants, which in small steps would move away from the current core concept of Bitcoin where control is with the user.

Cheaper? He got the coins for free. Would even make a huge profit, if the amount of coins is true. Which I doubt.

Not to mention the fact that Bitcoin developers are not "soldiers" following orders.

[kjj]

I think there is a much cheaper way to influence Bitcoin compared to destroying it by trade.

Just lean on the lead developers, push them towards implementing new features no one really wants, which in small steps would move away from the current core concept of Bitcoin where control is with the user.

Different lead developers would take over the old fork.  It happens every day in the open source world, usually when someone gets burned out.

[modrobert]

I think there is a much cheaper way to influence Bitcoin compared to destroying it by trade.

Just lean on the lead developers, push them towards implementing new features no one really wants, which in small steps would move away from the current core concept of Bitcoin where control is with the user.

Cheaper? He got the coins for free. Would even make a huge profit, if the amount of coins is true. Which I doubt.

Not to mention the fact that Bitcoin developers are not "soldiers" following orders.

istar,

In what way would "getting the coins for free" destroy Bitcoin unless he actually do something with them?


Serenata,

If a government or corporation really "lean" on you, what is the price you are willing to pay to deny?


kjj,

You are assuming one lead developer then, but what if all of of them are targeted (not that many anyway).

[istar]

I think there is a much cheaper way to influence Bitcoin compared to destroying it by trade.

Just lean on the lead developers, push them towards implementing new features no one really wants, which in small steps would move away from the current core concept of Bitcoin where control is with the user.

Cheaper? He got the coins for free. Would even make a huge profit, if the amount of coins is true. Which I doubt.

Not to mention the fact that Bitcoin developers are not "soldiers" following orders.

istar,

In what way would "getting the coins for free" destroy Bitcoin unless he actually do something with them?


Serenata,

If a government or corporation really "lean" on you, what is the price you are willing to pay to deny?


kjj,

You are assuming one lead developer then, but what if all of of them are targeted (not that many anyway).

I dont think it would destroy Bitcoin. It would just do more or less "damage" if you look at the price of a Bitcoin as a messure of its success which most people do.

Why?
If the price tanks in one second down to $1, this will be reported by NEWS media "everytime" Bitcoin is mentioned.

99% of normal uneducated people would take this as a confirmation that Bitcoin is a failure/dangerous currency and something to stay away from and many merchants would hesitate.
Most people tend to not like money that can crash in value any second.

Ofcourse there is more to Bitcoin and there is allways the saying...
What doesnt kill you makes you stronger and all publicity is good publicity.
But the more people who dare try and understand Bitcoin, the stronger it gets and the lower its value goes the less people who will mine. So the weaker the system gets.

This could be fixed if exchanges had a crash prevention break mechanism.
Something like, not allowing a single person to dump the price down more than 5-10% in a single dump per day.

To get the price down 5% would mean you would have to dump 21,000 Bitcoins. After that he could still sell the rest of his coins, as long as they price was not driven down.

Most people do not even have that many Bitcoins and most people would like to sell them at the highest price possible. So only those who want to break the stability and price of Bitcoins would get a harder time.

This would give people time to react and make it much harder for a single person to control the price of everyone in the worlds Bitcoins. Not allowing a single user to dump the price in an instant at the expense of every Bitcoin holder out there.

Now we would get a stable currency.

[modrobert]

I dont think it would destroy Bitcoin. It would just do more or less "damage" if you look at the price of a Bitcoin as a messure of its success which most people do.

Why?
If the price tanks in one second down to $1, this will be reported by NEWS media "everytime" Bitcoin is mentioned.

99% of normal uneducated people would take this as a confirmation that Bitcoin is a failure/dangerous currency and something to stay away from and many merchants would hesitate.
Most people tend to not like money that can crash in value any second.

Ofcourse there is more to Bitcoin and there is allways the saying...
What doesnt kill you makes you stronger and all publicity is good publicity.
But the more people who dare try and understand Bitcoin, the stronger it gets and the lower its value goes the less people who will mine. So the weaker the system gets.

This could be fixed if exchanges had a crash prevention break mechanism.
Something like, not allowing a single person to dump the price down more than 5-10% in a single dump per day.

To get the price down 5% would mean you would have to dump 21,000 Bitcoins. After that he could still sell the rest of his coins, as long as they price was not driven down.

Most people do not even have that many Bitcoins and most people would like to sell them at the highest price possible. So only those who want to break the stability and price of Bitcoins would get a harder time.

This would give people time to react and make it much harder for a single person to control the price of everyone in the worlds Bitcoins. Not allowing a single user to dump the price in an instant at the expense of every Bitcoin holder out there.

Now we would get a stable currency.

Still, I think Bitcoin would survive that scenario, volatile or not.

Perhaps there could be one way to hurt Bitcoin by trading; Pirate sell all of the 500k BTC (he supposedly sits on) over a short period of time, driving the BTC rate towards $0, spread posts like "This is the end!" using sockpuppet aliases on forums, then buy by back as much BTC as possible during the collapse, transfer all Bitcoins to a local wallet and delete it (DoD 7 pass wipe). Second thought, it would probably just drive up the price on the few remaining Bitcoins still in circulation, as he can't get all of them.

[kjj]

kjj,

You are assuming one lead developer then, but what if all of of them are targeted (not that many anyway).

I'm not assuming anything.  I'm telling you that the exact thing you are talking about happens every single day.  Not the coersion, but the forking of software projects and the changes in development teams.

[modrobert]

kjj,

You are assuming one lead developer then, but what if all of of them are targeted (not that many anyway).

I'm not assuming anything.  I'm telling you that the exact thing you are talking about happens every single day.  Not the coersion, but the forking of software projects and the changes in development teams.

Ok, then lets have a new currency every single fork and see how that pans out, because that is in effect what a fork would mean in this case. In reality I think people would stick to the established Bitcoin, despite changes to core functionality eventually leading to central control and new rules.

[kjj]

kjj,

You are assuming one lead developer then, but what if all of of them are targeted (not that many anyway).

I'm not assuming anything.  I'm telling you that the exact thing you are talking about happens every single day.  Not the coersion, but the forking of software projects and the changes in development teams.

Ok, then lets have a new currency every single fork and see how that pans out, because that is in effect what a fork would mean in this case. In reality I think people would stick to the established Bitcoin, despite changes to core functionality eventually leading to central control and new rules.

Ugh.  No one will accept changes of that sort in the first place.  We know better.  And by "we", I mean the bulk of current bitcoin users, and absolutely 100% of the people running virtually all of the important associated services (pools, exchanges, explorers, gambling sites, etc)

I thought you meant like UI changes and stuff, because making the UI annoying is literally the only thing they could really do.  If someone leaned on the devs to make them change the protocol for the worst, that fork would die on the vine and the old version would continue.

[modrobert]

Ugh.  No one will accept changes of that sort in the first place.  We know better.  And by "we", I mean the bulk of current bitcoin users, and absolutely 100% of the people running virtually all of the important associated services (pools, exchanges, explorers, gambling sites, etc)

I thought you meant like UI changes and stuff, because making the UI annoying is literally the only thing they could really do.  If someone leaned on the devs to make them change the protocol for the worst, that fork would die on the vine and the old version would continue.

I was hoping for a reply like this, and I feel the same. Just making users aware of likely destructive scenarios, mainly that it doesn't have to involve Bitcoin speculation.

[symbot]

Maybe pirate was just a guy who ran a very successful Ponzi?