|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transactions must be included in a block to be properly completed. When you send a transaction, it is broadcast to miners. Miners can then optionally include it in their next blocks. Miners will be more inclined to include your transaction if it has a higher transaction fee.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
talikila
|
 |
January 05, 2017, 04:42:23 AM |
|
Yes, it surpassed the gold and it still continues to rise up higher. I can see the buying power is stronger than before. Maybe the price will hit 1,250$ in this month. it's awesome. go ahead, ahead bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
CjMapope
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1820
Merit: 1092
~Full-Time Minter since 2016~
|
|
January 05, 2017, 04:47:13 AM |
|
o wow thats huge. We will remember this day, as i fully believe in 10 years we will talk about "when BTC was 1000$"  Course by then those of us who resist selling will hopefully be sitting on a beach somewhere as the new wealthy elite soooo.... thx for the link, ill be rubbing that one into my non-bitcoiner friends |
~Got this girl in my bed, a roof over my head, i mint a couple coins a week, and thats how i make bread~ ~On the 12th day of Hatzvah, OGminer said to me: "compute root of the merkle hash tree!"~ Prohashing -- Simply the best Multipool! |
|
|
Carlton Banks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3074
|
|
January 05, 2017, 09:56:06 AM |
|
Meaningless as a milestone.
Bitcoin did not achieve parity with the gold price, and arguably never can as there is no such thing as an ounce of Bitcoin (which is what the spot price for gold actually represents).
If one calculates the same proportion of the current overall gold supply as 1 BTC represents from the current Bitcoin supply, the "parity" equivalence would be more like 12-15 kg of gold, and Bitcoin would need a price closer to $400,000 to be equal to that (i.e. a 16 millionth of the gold supply). And all that ignores that both the figure for the total gold supply and the gold price itself are often called into question.
So it's a fool's game trying to pin the tail on this particular donkey, IMO
|
Vires in numeris
|
|
|
mixan
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 966
Merit: 1000
TRUMP IS DOING THE BEST! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
|
|
January 05, 2017, 10:21:46 AM |
|
I do remember when gold was worth $642 an ounce. Man I must be old now.  I have seen it reach over $1200. But according to this site I was looking at it was over that before. "Gold reached an all time high of 1898.25 in September of 2011 and a record low of 34.83 in January of 1970." |
The parasite hates three things: free markets, free will, and free men.
|
|
|
Minecache (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2198
Merit: 1024
Vave.com - Crypto Casino
|
|
January 05, 2017, 10:55:17 AM |
|
Meaningless as a milestone.
Bitcoin did not achieve parity with the gold price, and arguably never can as there is no such thing as an ounce of Bitcoin (which is what the spot price for gold actually represents).
If one calculates the same proportion of the current overall gold supply as 1 BTC represents from the current Bitcoin supply, the "parity" equivalence would be more like 12-15 kg of gold, and Bitcoin would need a price closer to $400,000 to be equal to that (i.e. a 16 millionth of the gold supply). And all that ignores that both the figure for the total gold supply and the gold price itself are often called into question.
So it's a fool's game trying to pin the tail on this particular donkey, IMO
Did you even bother to read the article? It's more about Bitcoin becoming the first currency to ever match gold on price. That symbolism is what matters more to the layman than trying to perform some stupid clumsy weight price calculation. All IMHO. |
|
|
|
Carlton Banks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3074
|
|
January 05, 2017, 11:32:17 AM |
|
My comment was that it's a meaningless observation, which I qualified. Did you read what I wrote? Didn't think so
|
Vires in numeris
|
|
|
|
just_Alice
|
|
January 05, 2017, 04:17:36 PM |
|
I do remember when gold was worth $642 an ounce. Man I must be old now. I have seen it reach over $1200. But according to this site I was looking at it was over that before. "Gold reached an all time high of 1898.25 in September of 2011 and a record low of 34.83 in January of 1970."And they say Bitcoin is volatile! Look at those numbers for the gold price. 35$/oz in 1970, 800$/oz in 1980, 250$/oz in 2000, 1800$/oz in 2011, 1060$/oz in 2016 ... I think it would be fair to state that Bitcoin is not more volatile than gold. |
|
|
|
|
Minecache (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2198
Merit: 1024
Vave.com - Crypto Casino
|
|
January 05, 2017, 06:47:43 PM |
|
My comment was that it's a meaningless observation, which I qualified. Did you read what I wrote? Didn't think so
My comment, and even the article authors comment, was that it isn't a meaningless observation, however your retort is. Again, did you even bother to read what the author wrote? Nope, didn't think so. |
|
|
|
Carlton Banks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3074
|
|
January 05, 2017, 07:10:54 PM |
|
An ounce of gold is an arbitrary measurement, 1 BTC is not
The total amount of gold stock mined is not arbitrary. Neither is the total amount of Bitcoin mined
I invite everyone reading to make their own minds up about the conclusion
|
Vires in numeris
|
|
|
Minecache (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2198
Merit: 1024
Vave.com - Crypto Casino
|
|
January 05, 2017, 11:53:38 PM |
|
An ounce of gold is an arbitrary measurement, 1 BTC is not
The total amount of gold stock mined is not arbitrary. Neither is the total amount of Bitcoin mined
I invite everyone reading to make their own minds up about the conclusion
It's very clear from the article that the author is talking exclusively about price parity and how Bitcoin has achieved what no other currency throughout history has nor could. Your overt semantics over unit measurement are simply designed to muddy the water and downplay this achievement. For what agenda I know not. Every other reader of the article and respondee to this thread comprehends this. |
|
|
|
maku
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000
|
|
January 06, 2017, 12:18:56 AM |
|
I always thought that Gold Parity was reached before when bitcoin jumped to its ATH of $1242 on 29th November 2013. The problem with this historical ATH is that it was measured by Mt.Gox and this exchange at that time wasn't fully operational. Their insolvency made selling BTC at that $1242 price impossible. |
|
|
|
|
|
marseille
|
|
January 06, 2017, 04:29:24 AM |
|
Nice although I think gold is at pretty low point and may climb significantly in 2017. But it is great for bitcoin, I do see that bitcoin can and will go a lot higher, when more people get into it.
|
|
|
|
|
Carlton Banks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3074
|
|
January 06, 2017, 10:56:03 AM |
|
It's very clear from the article that the author is talking exclusively about price parity and how Bitcoin has achieved what no other currency throughout history has nor could. Your overt semantics over unit measurement are simply designed to muddy the water and downplay this achievement. For what agenda I know not. Every other reader of the article and respondee to this thread comprehends this.
What you're really saying is: "No-one is permitted to think about this in any way that differs from the way this article presents it" Maybe if you were less interested in policing everyone's thoughts, and actually having a discussion, you and I could have done something constructive. For instance, you could have said: "1 BTC is determined by the denary number system, conferred by the number of fingers homo sapiens use to count with, therefore 1 BTC is also arbitrary". But you weren't really interested in exploring the boundaries of what makes any of this significant, bitchy comments and intellectual dogma apparently trump having a useful discussion. I'm noticing a few more heretics have since arrived, pointing out that the gold spot is not set in stone, or that the price has exceeded this level in the past. Have fun in your safe-space sandbox |
Vires in numeris
|
|
|
|
