Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[JorgeStolfi]

If you don't want public funds embezzled, require that all government spending be on-chain.  Anyone who actually wants democratic accountability should be all over that.  If your political opponent objects, well then, prima facie, he is corrupt.

If you want elected officials to be accountable for the source of their financial support, require that political donations be on-chain.

If you want assurance that taxes are paid, require that all taxable transactions occur on-chain, and all tax payments be made on-chain.

The Department of Defense [sic] would not have been unable to account for those 2.3 trillion USD reported mislaid on 10 Sept 2001, if those transactions had been on-chain, and events which ensued as a consequence would not have derived.

That is terribly naive, @aminorex.

In many democratic countries, the law already requires that all government spending be properly accounted and made available to the public.  Even in my own.  But embezzling of public funds is never so trivial as a public officer writing a check to himself.  The most common and efficient method is overbudgeting some large project and then having the contractor deposit a kickback in some offshore account.  (Last year the 3 past Governors of the State of São Paulo, all of the same opposition party, were found to have received several hundred million dollars in kickbacks from Alstom and Siemens, from contracts for the São Paulo metro.  Then, to counteract that bad news, the opposition found that an executive in the oil company Petrobrás, controlled by the federal government, bought a refinery in Pasadena that was good only for scrap, and apparently got a fat kickback on that.  And those are only two of literally thousands of similar cases, at all levels of government.)   There other methods too (like, internet gawkers found last year that an apartment in Miami was sold for US$ 10 to a Brazilian Supreme Court judge), but all are of course designed to not show up in the public spending records.

Ditto for political donations, taxable transactions, etc.. The law requires that they be declared, but of course people who violate donation and tax laws violate the reporting laws too.  The same would happen if the law required all such transactions to be made in bitcoin -- those willing to make illegal payments would not use bitcoin, or would use accounts that cannot be connected to them.

As for the military/CIA/NSA/FBI/etc., they would surely get exemptions from a "blockchain law" for national security reasons, with broad public support -- just as they now get exemptions from FOIA and external supervision.

It is a mistake that tech people make time and time again: to believe that a social/political problem can be solved by technology alone.  Without a social/political change, a technological "solution" will always be blocked, or co-opted and turned into part of the problem.  Bitcoin will not stop the banks from running the world; only an energic and lasting political effort could do that.

[shmadz]

If you don't want public funds embezzled, require that all government spending be on-chain.  Anyone who actually wants democratic accountability should be all over that.  If your political opponent objects, well then, prima facie, he is corrupt.

If you want elected officials to be accountable for the source of their financial support, require that political donations be on-chain.

If you want assurance that taxes are paid, require that all taxable transactions occur on-chain, and all tax payments be made on-chain.

The Department of Defense [sic] would not have been unable to account for those 2.3 trillion USD reported mislaid on 10 Sept 2001, if those transactions had been on-chain, and events which ensued as a consequence would not have derived.

That is terribly naive, @aminorex.

In many democratic countries, the law already requires that all government spending be properly accounted and made available to the public.  Even in my own.  But embezzling of public funds is never so trivial as a public officer writing a check to himself.  The most common and efficient method is overbudgeting some large project and then having the contractor deposit a kickback in some offshore account.  (Last year the 3 past Governors of the State of São Paulo, all of the same opposition party, were found to have received several hundred million dollars in kickbacks from Alstom and Siemens, from contracts for the São Paulo metro.  Then, to counteract that bad news, the opposition found that an executive in the oil company Petrobrás, controlled by the federal government, bought a refinery in Pasadena that was good only for scrap, and apparently got a fat kickback on that.  And those are only two of literally thousands of similar cases, at all levels of government.)   There other methods too (like, internet gawkers found last year that an apartment in Miami was sold for US$ 10 to a Brazilian Supreme Court judge), but all are of course designed to not show up in the public spending records.

Ditto for political donations, taxable transactions, etc.. The law requires that they be declared, but of course people who violate donation and tax laws violate the reporting laws too.  The same would happen if the law required all such transactions to be made in bitcoin -- those willing to make illegal payments would not use bitcoin, or would use accounts that cannot be connected to them.

As for the military/CIA/NSA/FBI/etc., they would surely get exemptions from a "blockchain law" for national security reasons, with broad public support -- just as they now get exemptions from FOIA and external supervision.

It is a mistake that tech people make time and time again: to believe that a social/political problem can be solved by technology alone.  Without a social/political change, a technological "solution" will always be blocked, or co-opted and turned into part of the problem.  Bitcoin will not stop the banks from running the world; only an energic and lasting political effort could do that.

dude, when the RFC's (request for contract up here in canuckistan) and the bid proposals for public projects are made in transparent terms, then at least we can only blame ourselves.

I think that's all we're really asking for.

*edit to address this part - "Bitcoin will not stop the banks from running the world; only an energic and lasting political effort could do that."

Bitcoin may indeed be the catalyst for the energetic and lasting political effort that I think we would all like to see.

[Equus]

alright, it's official. dogecoin can go to the moon, litecoin too, but bitcoin is going to the sun!

I am strapping on new wax wings as we speak.     Unfortunately they keep melting every time bitcoin flies too high.

[shmadz]

alright, it's official. dogecoin can go to the moon, litecoin too, but bitcoin is going to the sun!

I am strapping on new wax wings as we speak.     Unfortunately they keep melting every time bitcoin flies too high.

just because the wax melts, do you throw away the design of the wing?

[BBmodBB]

Explanation

/\BTC ready to test $500 again just watch !  

[Equus]

alright, it's official. dogecoin can go to the moon, litecoin too, but bitcoin is going to the sun!

I am strapping on new wax wings as we speak.     Unfortunately they keep melting every time bitcoin flies too high.

just because the wax melts, do you throw away the design of the wing?

If it is good enough for Icarus it's good enough for me.  It is way more fun to shoot at the sun with fresh wax wings every six months than it would be to slowly climb the long term trend. 

Not sure that flying too close to the sun is the best metaphor to sell an emerging technology though.

[shmadz]

alright, it's official. dogecoin can go to the moon, litecoin too, but bitcoin is going to the sun!

I am strapping on new wax wings as we speak.     Unfortunately they keep melting every time bitcoin flies too high.

just because the wax melts, do you throw away the design of the wing?

If it is good enough for Icarus it's good enough for me.  It is way more fun to shoot at the sun with fresh wax wings every six months than it would be to slowly climb the long term trend.  

Not sure that flying too close to the sun is the best metaphor to sell an emerging technology though.

what I'm trying to say is that Satoshi already designed the wing. all we need to do is develop the wax that lets the wing fly.

as for the sun... http://youtu.be/czNxV8wZSnc?t=1m35s

[Davyd05]

Back to back green markers on the 3d macd, at least we should soon be able to tell whether or not the market is ready to shrug off the Chinese banning rhetoric.

[JorgeStolfi]

Does anyone really expect chinese exchanges to adhere to their joint statement?

My guess is that they mostly will, because they must have got some explicit and emphatic "advice" from the government.

To me, that Summit was born as part of the marketing plan for that new investment fund, BitFund.pe.  Now, the only advantage I know of SecondMarket's BIT fund over buying bitcoins directly is that US citizens can use certain retirement funds to invest in the former but not the latter.  I don't think that BitfFund.pe would have a similar advantage for ordinary Chinese citizens; but it may be attractive for things that the Chiense government does not like, such as corruption.  However, if it is registered offshore (.pe = Peru), the Chinese government cannot shut it down.  Hence the ban on news coverage of the Summit, and the "spontanous" withdrawal of the exchanges from it.

As for stopping leveraged trading, perhaps the PBoC considers that activity an instance of commercial money lending, which presumably only banks are authorized to do.

As for the fees on HFT trading, I have no idea.   I don't think that the government would care about that, but HFT may have been inducing ordinary clients to cash out and leave; so that item of the agreement may be implemented out of self-interest.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[cAPSLOCK]

CCMF

[Bitcoin_is_here_to_stay]

Does anyone really expect chinese exchanges to adhere to their joint statement?

My guess is that they mostly will, because they must have got some explicit and emphatic "advice" from the government.

To me, that Summit was born as part of the marketing plan for that new investment fund, BitFund.pe.  Now, the only advantage I know of SecondMarket's BIT fund over buying bitcoins directly is that US citizens can use certain retirement funds to invest in the former but not the latter.  I don't think that BitfFund.pe would have a similar advantage for ordinary Chinese citizens; but it may be attractive for things that the Chiense government does not like, such as corruption.  However, if it is registered offshore (.pe = Peru), the Chinese government cannot shut it down.  Hence the ban on news coverage of the Summit, and the "spontanous" withdrawal of the exchanges from it.

As for stopping leveraged trading, perhaps the PBoC considers that activity an instance of commercial money lending, which presumably only banks are authorized to do.

As for the fees on HFT trading, I have no idea.   I don't think that the government would care about that, but HFT may have been inducing ordinary clients to cash out and leave; so that item of the agreement may be implemented out of self-interest.

Another advantage of Second Market is that you do not need to worry about safe storage, private keys, exchanges being hacked or being scammers etc - although of course Second Market charges you a lot of $$$ for that. Perhaps even more importantly, you can be very technology naive, never have bit coin wallet etc

Speaking about Chinese ban - is there any evidence that PBoC required exchanges to withdraw from the Bitcoin Summit? Or does it seem to be their initiative to please PBoC?

Clearly, China has a very different culture from one I 've been brought in (Europe). It does seem very strange to me to allow exchanges to operate, but (effectively) not advertise their services Is this "Chinese way"?

[aminorex]

*paraphrasing*
"for the world is generally opposed to secret societies which can only do their business under cover of darkness"
 - *I think i remember some guy saying something like that once upon a time.*

bitcoin is the eternal sun shining upon any and all transactions that the transactors wish to be made public.

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.

[shmadz]

CCMF

finally, a voice of reason.

[aminorex]

That is terribly naive, @aminorex.

when, in this corrupt world, has any improvement ever been obtained except by a robust, educated, diligent and sacrificial naivete?

[BBmodBB]

#OFFTOPIC (sort of) ====> LITECOIN(LTC) HEADING UP!!! >> https://www.cryptsy.com/markets/view/3

433 BTC SELL WALL GETTING EATEN HERE!!! WOW GO CHINA GOOOO!!!!

[cAPSLOCK]

finally, a voice of reason.

Hmm.  Id prefer you not project all that on me.  But I have never posted a train picture before.  I wonder if anyone besides me sees why this is a good day to post one?

[Davyd05]

finally, a voice of reason.

Hmm.  Id prefer you not project all that on me.  But I have never posted a train picture before.  I wonder if anyone besides me sees why this is a good day to post one?

it's a decent time to bet on reversals. but by no means safe.

[shmadz]

finally, a voice of reason.

Hmm.  Id prefer you not project all that on me.  But I have never posted a train picture before.  I wonder if anyone besides me sees why this is a good day to post one?

apologies. not trying to project anything.

anyone besides you? well I can only talk for me.
/// personally I just removed my lowest bid on the tranche to replace the bids that got eaten on the last dip..

I am hopeful that the price will go lower, and fearful that it might not.

[JorgeStolfi]

How MtGOX's depositors' claims would be computed under US liquidation laws:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=587295.msg6644323#msg6644323

If that holds for Japanese laws too, it has important implications for the MtGOX liquidation vs. ressurection issue.  I can see that some clients would strongly want one way rather than the other.