Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 03:49:30 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 [522] 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1803722 times)
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128



View Profile
August 10, 2014, 05:40:52 PM
 #10421

Interesting to note the gold bugs are converting.

Jeffrey Tucker puts it down to experiencing bitcoin; he related the story of being ridiculed by P Schiff for 18 months over his bitcoin stance until one day Schiff approached him, marvelling at how quick bitcoin transactions were completed and how it saved his company plenty on fee payments. Schiff had decided to accept bitcoin purely opportunistically to cash it out, but is now converted.

Wonder if this kind of story, multiplied across the market, will see an increased flow from gold to btc?

Of course it would but, link please.

OK, im not sure how far in it is but the whole segment is a good listen.

http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-134-disruptive-leaps

Tucker first mentions Schiff around 10:00, tells that story around 11:40

lol:

Tucker:  What?

Schiff:  See, i told you we could process online tx's immediately and for virtually 0 tx cost!

remember schiffs explanation (I think in an interview with Stefan Molyneux) why it actually wasn't cheaper at all? "You have to exchange BTC/USD first then the other way around on the other end. Fees involved everywhere.". hehe.

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480780170
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480780170

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480780170
Reply with quote  #2

1480780170
Report to moderator
1480780170
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480780170

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480780170
Reply with quote  #2

1480780170
Report to moderator
1480780170
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480780170

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480780170
Reply with quote  #2

1480780170
Report to moderator
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128



View Profile
August 10, 2014, 05:41:30 PM
 #10422

same link.  Tucker mentions Rogers too.

Oh, I paused to have dinner. Then forgot... should listen to the rest Wink

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 10, 2014, 05:49:24 PM
 #10423

Interesting to note the gold bugs are converting.

Jeffrey Tucker puts it down to experiencing bitcoin; he related the story of being ridiculed by P Schiff for 18 months over his bitcoin stance until one day Schiff approached him, marvelling at how quick bitcoin transactions were completed and how it saved his company plenty on fee payments. Schiff had decided to accept bitcoin purely opportunistically to cash it out, but is now converted.

Wonder if this kind of story, multiplied across the market, will see an increased flow from gold to btc?

Of course it would but, link please.

OK, im not sure how far in it is but the whole segment is a good listen.

http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-134-disruptive-leaps

Tucker first mentions Schiff around 10:00, tells that story around 11:40

lol:

Tucker:  What?

Schiff:  See, i told you we could process online tx's immediately and for virtually 0 tx cost!

remember schiffs explanation (I think in an interview with Stefan Molyneux) why it actually wasn't cheaper at all? "You have to exchange BTC/USD first then the other way around on the other end. Fees involved everywhere.". hehe.


when he first announced accepting BTC for gold, i said he probably was already convinced and was trying to accumulate.  i still stand by that.
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128



View Profile
August 10, 2014, 06:03:12 PM
 #10424

when he first announced accepting BTC for gold, i said he probably was already convinced and was trying to accumulate.  i still stand by that.

we should get him drunk and ask him.

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
tabnloz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 793


View Profile
August 10, 2014, 06:33:44 PM
 #10425

Interesting to note the gold bugs are converting.

Jeffrey Tucker puts it down to experiencing bitcoin; he related the story of being ridiculed by P Schiff for 18 months over his bitcoin stance until one day Schiff approached him, marvelling at how quick bitcoin transactions were completed and how it saved his company plenty on fee payments. Schiff had decided to accept bitcoin purely opportunistically to cash it out, but is now converted.

Wonder if this kind of story, multiplied across the market, will see an increased flow from gold to btc?

Of course it would but, link please.

OK, im not sure how far in it is but the whole segment is a good listen.

http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-134-disruptive-leaps

now THAT is really good news. 

altho quite predictable.  Jim Rogers too.

+ 1, it adds to the momentum.

And the whole podcast was great, discussing honest skeptics, indoctrinated thinkers vs no experience, paradigm breaking etc etc.
vuduchyld
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


View Profile
August 10, 2014, 08:26:58 PM
 #10426

just look at the return on the different timeframes going back to 7d.  then look at the 365d charts:



I've been working on several iterations of indexes for alts.  Right now, the only two I can find BOTH include BTC, which makes up around 93% of the movement of those indexes.  The purer alt indexes I have constructed and have been tracking both portray the broad alt market as pretty unfriendly right now. 

My guess is that since most alt traders are only looking at their own portfolios (because there is currently no good way to see the broader market), they are mistakenly assuming that markets as a whole are performing better than their portfolios.

OR they think they are smart enough to pick the few winners.  In the early 20th Century, there were hundreds of auto makers.  That eventually got whittled down to three.  Even though the capital costs and overheads are lower and the process and speed of innovation is faster, I'd guess the same thing will happen to most alts.  It may not be quite as stark because a more-or-less DOA alt can hang around for a while without the same liquidation concerns, but 99% of them are going to languish at a value close to zero.



 
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
August 10, 2014, 08:41:49 PM
 #10427

Kadhafi's gold money plan would have devastated dollar?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/markets/item/4630-gadhafis-gold-money-plan-would-have-devastated-dollar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UReu9equ2kw
ErisDiscordia
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 889


Imposition of ORder = Escalation of Chaos


View Profile
August 10, 2014, 09:19:39 PM
 #10428

when he first announced accepting BTC for gold, i said he probably was already convinced and was trying to accumulate.  i still stand by that.

we should get him drunk and ask him.


We should just wait a while for the Bitcoin 1K$ party to finally come around and invite all of these guys for a drink  Cheesy

regarding the podcast: Andreas truly is the Terence McKenna of Bitcoin

It's all bullshit. But bullshit makes the flowers grow and that's beautiful.
wachtwoord
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484



View Profile WWW
August 10, 2014, 10:31:50 PM
 #10429


Sounds extremely plausible. It certainly wasn't humanitarian reasons:


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 10, 2014, 11:02:06 PM
 #10430

This sounds interesting. It's hard to believe this is coming out of the UK. This type of inevitable discord is what will drive Bitcoin forward no matter what idiots like Lawsky tries.

http://www.businessinsider.com/britain-regulate-bitcoin-legitimate-currency-2014-8
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 11, 2014, 03:11:42 AM
 #10431

I describe the mechanisms by which cryptocurrencies — a subcategory of virtual currencies — could replace tax havens as the weapon-of-choice for tax-evaders. I argue such outcome is reasonably expected in the foreseeable future due to the contemporary convergence of two processes. The first process is the increasing popularity of cryptocurrencies, of which Bitcoin is the most widely recognized example. The second process is the transformation of financial intermediaries to agents in the service of tax authorities, as part of the fight against offshore tax evasion. Financial institutions are faced with increased governmental pressure to deliver information about account holders, to withhold taxes from earnings accumulating in financial accounts, and to remit such taxes to taxing authorities around the world. Significantly, cryptocurrencies possess all the traditional characteristics that tax haves do; Earnings are not subject to taxation, and taxpayers’ anonymity is maintained. The operation of cryptocurrencies, however, is not dependent on the existence of financial intermediaries. Thus, cryptocurrencies have the potential of defeating the recent successes of governments in battling offshore tax evasion. I further suggest that while governments have paid some attention to this issue, they have so far failed to identify the acuteness of the potential problem.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2305863
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 11, 2014, 03:42:46 AM
 #10432


The full paper is available for download.  It's quite well-written and worth a read. Here are some highlights that caught my eye:


The paper reads as though the growth of bitcoin is inevitable given its properties:




The author points out some interesting implications of a mature bitcoin economy:




This overreaching proposal would hurt global innovation, resulting in less wealth production in aggregate:




Although a market-based solution like this may not completely accomplish its goals of owning 100% of the bitcoins, an initiative where central banks bought up a significant amount of coins might still produce positive effects:


Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
tabnloz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 793


View Profile
August 11, 2014, 04:48:29 AM
 #10433



Quote
Although a market-based solution like this may not completely accomplish its goals of owning 100% of the bitcoins, an initiative where central banks bought up a significant amount of coins might still produce positive effects:



The political environment should ensure this doesn't happen. When growth and jobs have been mere mirages for so long, the prospect of a crypto led renaissance is a vote winner. Candidates look forward thinking, innovative and fresh even though the thinking is short term ie, getting elected.

If the CB's were to buy up, would this not make the circulating (not in their hands) btc more valuable?
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
August 11, 2014, 05:05:26 AM
 #10434

If the CB's were to buy up, would this not make the circulating (not in their hands) btc more valuable?
"Please don't throw us into the briar patch, central banks!"
Chicowash
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 48


View Profile
August 11, 2014, 06:19:42 AM
 #10435



Quote
Although a market-based solution like this may not completely accomplish its goals of owning 100% of the bitcoins, an initiative where central banks bought up a significant amount of coins might still produce positive effects:



The political environment should ensure this doesn't happen. When growth and jobs have been mere mirages for so long, the prospect of a crypto led renaissance is a vote winner. Candidates look forward thinking, innovative and fresh even though the thinking is short term ie, getting elected.

If the CB's were to buy up, would this not make the circulating (not in their hands) btc more valuable?


I can not see this happening for real, there is too much power in the hands of asic manufacters, but that is only if governments realy decide to just buy those manufacters, than we could be in trouble. For a short while it could cause price to rise up.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 11, 2014, 06:47:41 AM
 #10436

Quote from: Peter R
Although a market-based solution like this may not completely accomplish its goals of owning 100% of the bitcoins, an initiative where central banks bought up a significant amount of coins might still produce positive effects
If the CB's were to buy up, would this not make the circulating (not in their hands) btc more valuable?

Hence some of the positive effects Cheesy

In all seriousness, the scenario where central banks hold bitcoin reserves is plausible.  It will be generations before the last of the Keynesians goes extinct; in the meantime, the temptation to manipulate the money supply will be too great.  If bitcoin becomes an important part of the economy, the only way manipulation will be possible is to hold a large fraction of the coin supply.  And I'm OK with this sort of monetary policy.  At least discipline will be enforced by the network, and not by some old-boy's club lender of last resort.  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
August 11, 2014, 07:01:13 AM
 #10437

Quote from: Peter R
Although a market-based solution like this may not completely accomplish its goals of owning 100% of the bitcoins, an initiative where central banks bought up a significant amount of coins might still produce positive effects
If the CB's were to buy up, would this not make the circulating (not in their hands) btc more valuable?

Hence some of the positive effects Cheesy

Joking aside, the scenario where central banks hold bitcoin reserves is plausible.  It will be generations before the last of the Keynesians goes extinct; in the meantime, the temptation to manipulate the money supply will be too great.  If bitcoin use continues to grow, the only way manipulation will be possible is to hold a large fraction of the coin supply.  And I'm OK with this sort of monetary policy.  At least discipline will be enforced by the network, and not by some old-boy's club lender of last resort.  

It amazes me that the Fed wasn't all over the SR coins with proxy buyers outbidding Tim Draper (or not outbidding, but Tim being told that they did). There must some people working there with a brain. The Fed should have analysts who can see that, even though crypto is unproven long-term, they can do huge risk mitigation by acquiring a holding which represents a few percent of the 21M possible Bitcoin. This goes for other CBs.

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 11, 2014, 07:15:25 AM
 #10438

Quote from: Peter R
Although a market-based solution like this may not completely accomplish its goals of owning 100% of the bitcoins, an initiative where central banks bought up a significant amount of coins might still produce positive effects
If the CB's were to buy up, would this not make the circulating (not in their hands) btc more valuable?

Hence some of the positive effects Cheesy

Joking aside, the scenario where central banks hold bitcoin reserves is plausible.  It will be generations before the last of the Keynesians goes extinct; in the meantime, the temptation to manipulate the money supply will be too great.  If bitcoin use continues to grow, the only way manipulation will be possible is to hold a large fraction of the coin supply.  And I'm OK with this sort of monetary policy.  At least discipline will be enforced by the network, and not by some old-boy's club lender of last resort.  

It amazes me that the Fed wasn't all over the SR coins with proxy buyers outbidding Tim Draper (or not outbidding, but Tim being told that they did). There must some people working there with a brain. The Fed should have analysts who can see that, even though crypto is unproven long-term, they can do huge risk mitigation by acquiring a holding which represents a few percent of the 21M possible Bitcoin. This goes for other CBs.


Yes, it's not like it costs them anything to do so.  If they want to procure 500,000 BTC, they can create the money for the purchase out of thin air, add these dollars to the liability side of their balance sheet and add the 500,000 BTC to the asset side.  That's how the Fed works.  In fact, after TARP, they probably don't even need an act of Congress to start buying.

I keep saying that central banks get one final kick at the can: they can "sell out" by purchasing bitcoins with newly-created fiat until all confidence in fiat is lost.  Central banks would still have a big pile of coins to continue with monetary policy.  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
August 11, 2014, 08:46:41 AM
 #10439

Quote from: Peter R
Although a market-based solution like this may not completely accomplish its goals of owning 100% of the bitcoins, an initiative where central banks bought up a significant amount of coins might still produce positive effects
If the CB's were to buy up, would this not make the circulating (not in their hands) btc more valuable?

Hence some of the positive effects Cheesy

Joking aside, the scenario where central banks hold bitcoin reserves is plausible.  It will be generations before the last of the Keynesians goes extinct; in the meantime, the temptation to manipulate the money supply will be too great.  If bitcoin use continues to grow, the only way manipulation will be possible is to hold a large fraction of the coin supply.  And I'm OK with this sort of monetary policy.  At least discipline will be enforced by the network, and not by some old-boy's club lender of last resort.  

It amazes me that the Fed wasn't all over the SR coins with proxy buyers outbidding Tim Draper (or not outbidding, but Tim being told that they did). There must some people working there with a brain. The Fed should have analysts who can see that, even though crypto is unproven long-term, they can do huge risk mitigation by acquiring a holding which represents a few percent of the 21M possible Bitcoin. This goes for other CBs.


Yes, it's not like it costs them anything to do so.  If they want to procure 500,000 BTC, they can create the money for the purchase out of thin air, add these dollars to the liability side of their balance sheet and add the 500,000 BTC to the asset side.  That's how the Fed works.  In fact, after TARP, they probably don't even need an act of Congress to start buying.

I keep saying that central banks get one final kick at the can: they can "sell out" by purchasing bitcoins with newly-created fiat until all confidence in fiat is lost.  Central banks would still have a big pile of coins to continue with monetary policy.  

You forget that current policy is based on continually expanding, continually expanding the expansion (exponentially increase) of the money supply (including debt). With bitcoin, the only thing that is theoretically possible, is for the central bank to smooth out the volatility, in reality they can not do that either (because they can not look into the heads of the economic actors (everybody) (yet).
wachtwoord
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484



View Profile WWW
August 11, 2014, 01:31:02 PM
 #10440

Ragrding the earlier discussion in this topic regarding block limit has everyone read http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2d7ofh/technical_discussion_of_gavins_o1_block/ interesting summary.

Pages: « 1 ... 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 [522] 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 ... 1560 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!