rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)

[Syke]

As are my deposits in real banks, which are insured by the FDIC for at least $250,000.



...unlike Bitcoin banks: NeoBee (lol ran), TradeFortress (lol ran), and Ukyo (lol ran), which, unfortunately, are not

Or you can chose a respectable Bitcoin bank like www.circle.com which insures all deposits through Marsh Insurance. No artificial $250k limit either.

[1714493623]

1714493623

[1714493623]

1714493623

[1714493623]

1714493623

[1714493623]

1714493623

[1714493623]

1714493623

[1714493623]

1714493623

[brg444]

As are my deposits in real banks, which are insured by the FDIC for at least $250,000.



...unlike Bitcoin banks: NeoBee (lol ran), TradeFortress (lol ran), and Ukyo (lol ran), which, unfortunately, are not

Or you can chose a respectable Bitcoin bank like www.circle.com which insures all deposits through Marsh Insurance. No artificial $250k limit either.

Please, let's not promote Circle for what it is not. Even when dealing with trolls we have to be honest, at least amongst ourselves.

I have been very supportive of the company but in no way does their "theft" insurance compares to a FDIC insured deposit.

[Biodom]

No.  The USD is backed by the full faith and credit of the US government.  As are my deposits in real banks, which are insured by the FDIC for at least $250,000.

https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/resources/signage/images/signFDIC.gif

...unlike Bitcoin banks: NeoBee (lol ran), TradeFortress (lol ran), and Ukyo (lol ran), which, unfortunately, are not

So in the event that multiple banks get wiped out again, how do they pay for it? Is there a fund with cash in the bank?

Do any of our alphabet agencies actually have reserves? No they do not. Just look at Social Security--it's a bunch of IOUs.

It's worse.

I am curious about this. What exactly is the meaning of negative numbers in 2009-2010?
To me it indicates that they paid out more money than they had, but where did it come from?
They were 20 bil in the "hole" and still managed it somehow.

[solex]

No.  The USD is backed by the full faith and credit of the US government.  As are my deposits in real banks, which are insured by the FDIC for at least $250,000.

https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/resources/signage/images/signFDIC.gif

...unlike Bitcoin banks: NeoBee (lol ran), TradeFortress (lol ran), and Ukyo (lol ran), which, unfortunately, are not

So in the event that multiple banks get wiped out again, how do they pay for it? Is there a fund with cash in the bank?

Do any of our alphabet agencies actually have reserves? No they do not. Just look at Social Security--it's a bunch of IOUs.

It's worse.

I am curious about this. What exactly is the meaning of negative numbers in 2009-2010?
To me it indicates that they paid out more money than they had, but where did it come from?
They were 20 bil in the "hole" and still managed it somehow.

There is no FDIC insurance fund. It is just a line in the US Treasury's consolidated accounts. If and when the FDIC needs money then bonds and bills are sold to the Fed (indirectly via the primary dealers, so the TBTF banks can get their free zero-risk percentage, and the law is pretended to be observed). The Fed uses the control-P key to create the cash which is effectively "airdropped" into the economy.

[JayJuanGee]

...
You are finally going on ignore.

Not the ignore button.  My only weakness!
You cursed brat! Look what you've done! I'm melting! melting! Oh, what a world! What a world...

Your posts demonstrate that you surely have other weaknesses, and I did watch wizard of oz a lot as a kid.. seems to be fresh in your mind... as well as some funny kid cartoons... HM?

[cbeast]

...
You are finally going on ignore.

Not the ignore button.  My only weakness!
You cursed brat! Look what you've done! I'm melting! melting! Oh, what a world! What a world...

Your posts demonstrate that you surely have other weaknesses, and I did watch wizard of oz a lot as a kid.. seems to be fresh in your mind... as well as some funny kid cartoons... HM?

Spaceballs

[CMMPro]

FDIC only insures you against the bank walking away with your money in a bankruptcy.

There is no insurance for QE or runaway inflation making your money worthless.

Also, as the above info suggests...in the event of a pandemic banking collapse (see Cyprus) it looks like depositors would only have coverage for about 79% of their deposits anyway since the FDIC is underfunded.

[NotLambchop]

FDIC only insures you against the bank walking away with your money in a bankruptcy.

There is no insurance for QE or runaway inflation making your money worthless.

Also, as the above info suggests...in the event of a pandemic banking collapse (see Cyprus) it looks like depositors would only have coverage for about 79% of their deposits anyway since the FDIC is underfunded.

>Comparing US to Cyprus

[CMMPro]

I actually didn't "compare the US to Cyprus", I presented an example of a scenario where the FDIC wouldn't be able to cover their obligations. I never stated whether or not that scenario was possible in the US but perhaps you are forgetting your US history lessons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_U.S._bank_failures

Perhaps ask yourself why the FDIC was founded in the first place....oh yes, a pandemic banking collapse occurred.

"The FDIC was created in 1933 in response to the thousands of bank failures that occurred in the 1920s and early 1930s."

Do you think that govt or the banking industry learned anything from these historical banking collapses?
Do you think they learned anything from 2008-2010 collapses?
Do you think that's air you are breathing?

To be this stubborn and argumentative there are only two plausible scenarios...firstly, you are simply an asshole and for that you should go on ignore, or secondly you are possibly a paid disrupter like JTRIG but I think that is giving you too much credit seeing your lack of subversive tactics and psychological effectiveness here.

So, you get the only remedy I have to make sure your stupidity doesn't leak into my world...the ignore button.

When you meet one asshole in a day just forget about it...there's nothing you can do about one asshole in the world....if everyone you meet every day is an asshole...well, the asshole is probably you.

[NotLambchop]

I actually didn't "compare the US to Cyprus", I presented an example of a scenario where the FDIC wouldn't be able to cover their obligations. I never stated whether or not that scenario was possible in the US but perhaps you are forgetting your US history lessons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_U.S._bank_failures

Perhaps ask yourself why the FDIC was founded in the first place....oh yes, a pandemic banking collapse occurred.

"The FDIC was created in 1933 in response to the thousands of bank failures that occurred in the 1920s and early 1930s."

I always thought it was created because banks never failed, and it was just another example of wasteful gubermint bureaucracy.  But you say it ain't so, huh?  Well I'll be!

Do you think that govt or the banking industry learned anything from these historical banking collapses?
Do you think they learned anything from 2008-2010 collapses?

Of course.  Not everyone is uneducable.  Stop projecting.

Do you think that's air you are breathing?

Heavens no!  Our Beneficent Reptilian Overlords (long may they reign!) replaced it with Litimbium in 2011.  Around the same time we outlawed gravity.

To be this stubborn and argumentative there are only two plausible scenarios...firstly, you are simply an asshole and for that you should go on ignore, or secondly you are possibly a paid disrupter like JTRIG but I think that is giving you too much credit seeing your lack of subversive tactics and psychological effectiveness here.

So, you get the only remedy I have to make sure your stupidity doesn't leak into my world...the ignore button.
...

The ignore button?!  Please no!!1!

[Bagatell]

The ignore button?!  Please no!!1!

Before I too put you back on ignore, here's some of mmitechs double digits..





edit. job done.

[NotLambchop]

[Keyser Soze]

FDIC only insures you against the bank walking away with your money in a bankruptcy.

There is no insurance for QE or runaway inflation making your money worthless.

Also, as the above info suggests...in the event of a pandemic banking collapse (see Cyprus) it looks like depositors would only have coverage for about 79% of their deposits anyway since the FDIC is underfunded.

Small note, that chart is stating the deposit insurance fund covers 0.79% of insured deposits (not 79%).

[CMMPro]

Oh shit, I misinterpreted that as a decimal...it is almost impossibly hopeless to think they only have reserves to cover less than 1% of deposits.

[Biodom]

Bitcoin is about to undergo a 1:1000000 "stock" split.
essentially, they want a base unit and a second unit being 1:100 of the first.
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/press-releases/press-release-october-7-2014-bitcoin-foundation-financial-standards-working-group-leads-the-way-for-mainstream-bitcoin-adoption-2/
We already have two units: bitcoin and satoshi
Therefore, the only way to make this possible would be to recalculate bitcoin as 100 satoshi (deep inside everything is measured in satoshis anyway).
So, everyone with a current BTC will suddenly discover that he or she will have 1000000 bitcoins (officially called XBT from then on).
I think that this will put new bitcoin/XBT on a path that will eventually lead to XBT=~$1 with each satoshi=~1c.
How long it might take-maybe 20 years. If this happens, current BTC would equal $1,000,000

[SmoothCurves]

Bitcoin is about to undergo a 1:1000000 "stock" split.
essentially, they want a base unit and a second unit being 1:100 of the first.
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/press-releases/press-release-october-7-2014-bitcoin-foundation-financial-standards-working-group-leads-the-way-for-mainstream-bitcoin-adoption-2/
We already have two units: bitcoin and satoshi
Therefore, the only way to make this possible would be to recalculate bitcoin as 100 satoshi (deep inside everything is measured in satoshis anyway).
So, everyone with a current BTC will suddenly discover that he or she will have 1000000 bitcoins (officially called XBT from then on).
I think that this will put new bitcoin/XBT on a path that will eventually lead to XBT=~$1 with each satoshi=~1c.
How long it might take-maybe 20 years. If this happens, current BTC would equal $1,000,000

Coinbase has been using "bits": 1 BTC = 1,000,000 bits, 1 bit = 100 satoshi

So now the proposal wants to use:  1 BTC = 1,000,000 bitcoins/XBT , 1 bitcoin/XBT = 100 satoshi  ?

[Biodom]

Bitcoin is about to undergo a 1:1000000 "stock" split.
essentially, they want a base unit and a second unit being 1:100 of the first.
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/press-releases/press-release-october-7-2014-bitcoin-foundation-financial-standards-working-group-leads-the-way-for-mainstream-bitcoin-adoption-2/
We already have two units: bitcoin and satoshi
Therefore, the only way to make this possible would be to recalculate bitcoin as 100 satoshi (deep inside everything is measured in satoshis anyway).
So, everyone with a current BTC will suddenly discover that he or she will have 1000000 bitcoins (officially called XBT from then on).
I think that this will put new bitcoin/XBT on a path that will eventually lead to XBT=~$1 with each satoshi=~1c.
How long it might take-maybe 20 years. If this happens, current BTC would equal $1,000,000

Coinbase has been using "bits": 1 BTC = 1,000,000 bits, 1 bit = 100 satoshi

So now the proposal wants to use:  1 BTC = 1,000,000 bitcoins , 1 bitcoin = 100 satoshi  ?

I know, this is confusing, however since they will call a base unit XBT, there is no way they can call XBT "bit" because "bitcoin" is instantly recognizable, but "bit" is not.
I think that they are aiming to have just two units: bitcoin (XBT) and satoshi. If they will try to replace bitcoin with a term "bit" for XBT, there will be a huge resistance. However, if they simply recalculate bitcoin (XBT) as 100 satoshi instead of 100000000 satoshi, then they have a chance for the transition to go smoother.

[explorer]

Bitcoin is about to undergo a 1:1000000 "stock" split.
essentially, they want a base unit and a second unit being 1:100 of the first.
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/press-releases/press-release-october-7-2014-bitcoin-foundation-financial-standards-working-group-leads-the-way-for-mainstream-bitcoin-adoption-2/
We already have two units: bitcoin and satoshi
Therefore, the only way to make this possible would be to recalculate bitcoin as 100 satoshi (deep inside everything is measured in satoshis anyway).
So, everyone with a current BTC will suddenly discover that he or she will have 1000000 bitcoins (officially called XBT from then on).
I think that this will put new bitcoin/XBT on a path that will eventually lead to XBT=~$1 with each satoshi=~1c.
How long it might take-maybe 20 years. If this happens, current BTC would equal $1,000,000

Coinbase has been using "bits": 1 BTC = 1,000,000 bits, 1 bit = 100 satoshi

So now the proposal wants to use:  1 BTC = 1,000,000 bitcoins , 1 bitcoin = 100 satoshi  ?

I know, this is confusing, however since they will call a base unit XBT, there is no way they can call XBT "bit" because "bitcoin" is instantly recognizable, but "bit" is not.
I think that they are aiming to have just two units: bitcoin (XBT) and satoshi. If they will try to replace bitcoin with a term "bit" for XBT, there will be a huge resistance. However, if they simply recalculate bitcoin (XBT) as 100 satoshi instead of 100000000 satoshi, then they have a chance for the transition to go smoother.

   Sounds like a reasonable proposition that could remove some barriers/confusion for the average Joe.  Change is never easy, but it is occasionally worthwhile.  And hey, Cheap Coins 

[SmoothCurves]

Bitcoin is about to undergo a 1:1000000 "stock" split.
essentially, they want a base unit and a second unit being 1:100 of the first.
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/press-releases/press-release-october-7-2014-bitcoin-foundation-financial-standards-working-group-leads-the-way-for-mainstream-bitcoin-adoption-2/
We already have two units: bitcoin and satoshi
Therefore, the only way to make this possible would be to recalculate bitcoin as 100 satoshi (deep inside everything is measured in satoshis anyway).
So, everyone with a current BTC will suddenly discover that he or she will have 1000000 bitcoins (officially called XBT from then on).
I think that this will put new bitcoin/XBT on a path that will eventually lead to XBT=~$1 with each satoshi=~1c.
How long it might take-maybe 20 years. If this happens, current BTC would equal $1,000,000

Coinbase has been using "bits": 1 BTC = 1,000,000 bits, 1 bit = 100 satoshi

So now the proposal wants to use:  1 BTC = 1,000,000 bitcoins , 1 bitcoin = 100 satoshi  ?

I know, this is confusing, however since they will call a base unit XBT, there is no way they can call XBT "bit" because "bitcoin" is instantly recognizable, but "bit" is not.
I think that they are aiming to have just two units: bitcoin (XBT) and satoshi. If they will try to replace bitcoin with a term "bit" for XBT, there will be a huge resistance. However, if they simply recalculate bitcoin (XBT) as 100 satoshi instead of 100000000 satoshi, then they have a chance for the transition to go smoother.

   Sounds like a reasonable proposition that could remove some barriers/confusion for the average Joe.  Change is never easy, but it is occasionally worthwhile.  And hey, Cheap Coins  

Cheap coin indeed. Looking at a big balance of xbt would be interesting. Holders might be subject to The Wealth Effect - feel richer and maybe spend more xbt.

[Biodom]

Bitcoin is about to undergo a 1:1000000 "stock" split.
essentially, they want a base unit and a second unit being 1:100 of the first.
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/press-releases/press-release-october-7-2014-bitcoin-foundation-financial-standards-working-group-leads-the-way-for-mainstream-bitcoin-adoption-2/
We already have two units: bitcoin and satoshi
Therefore, the only way to make this possible would be to recalculate bitcoin as 100 satoshi (deep inside everything is measured in satoshis anyway).
So, everyone with a current BTC will suddenly discover that he or she will have 1000000 bitcoins (officially called XBT from then on).
I think that this will put new bitcoin/XBT on a path that will eventually lead to XBT=~$1 with each satoshi=~1c.
How long it might take-maybe 20 years. If this happens, current BTC would equal $1,000,000

Coinbase has been using "bits": 1 BTC = 1,000,000 bits, 1 bit = 100 satoshi

So now the proposal wants to use:  1 BTC = 1,000,000 bitcoins , 1 bitcoin = 100 satoshi  ?

I know, this is confusing, however since they will call a base unit XBT, there is no way they can call XBT "bit" because "bitcoin" is instantly recognizable, but "bit" is not.
I think that they are aiming to have just two units: bitcoin (XBT) and satoshi. If they will try to replace bitcoin with a term "bit" for XBT, there will be a huge resistance. However, if they simply recalculate bitcoin (XBT) as 100 satoshi instead of 100000000 satoshi, then they have a chance for the transition to go smoother.

   Sounds like a reasonable proposition that could remove some barriers/confusion for the average Joe.  Change is never easy, but it is occasionally worthwhile.  And hey, Cheap Coins  

Cheap coin indeed. Looking at a big balance of xbt would be interesting. Holders might be subject to The Wealth Effect - feel richer and maybe spend more xbt.

Guys, you are wrong.
They propose to have an iso currency code for bitcoin (e.g. XBT), a standardized bitcoin symbol ( e.g. BTC) and a subunit consisting of 100 satoshi's.
1 bitcoin will remain 100.000.000 satoshi's, no stock split or whatever...

I don't think so (at least at a first glance). They said:

In addition, the working group will recommend Bitcoin subunits. In a currency, there is usually a main unit (base), and a subunit that is a fraction of the main unit. Currencies today operate with two decimal spaces to the right ($1.00). In Bitcoin, there are currently eight so one could theoretically pay you 0.00000001 or one hundred-millionth of a Bitcoin. Not only is this confusing for consumers, it does not fit in existing systems and software for accounting practices.

Since bitcoin (XBT) will be clearly a base (main unit), then the only way is to make satoshi a subunit at 1:100 of bitcoin (XBT).
There is room in currency standard for a historical unit, which is what BTC will probably become. It will be just called BTC (not bitcoin) at 100,000,000 satoshi.