Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[giveBTCpls]

How many gas stations accept gold as payment? Because in USA and some other places they already are beginning to accept Bitcoins. If everything continues at this rate, you metal holders will get cold before than us.

[1714210099]

1714210099

[1714210099]

1714210099

[1714210099]

1714210099

[1714210099]

1714210099

[1714210099]

1714210099

[cypherdoc]

WTF is this?

BBC: ISPs Should Assume Heavy VPN Users are Pirates

http://torrentfreak.com/bbc-isps-should-assume-heavy-vpn-users-are-pirates-140908/

[cypherdoc]

from Reddit:

[–]Capt_Roger_Murdock 9 points 4 days ago:

Honestly, I see whatever Apple does in the payments space as largely irrelevant to whether or not Bitcoin will succeed. Bitcoin's real value proposition is not as a payment network that's superior to fiat payment networks. Bitcoin does have certain advantages in that regard, primarily censorship-resistance and the ability to do irreversible transfers. (Whether or not on-blockchain transactions will continue to have "low fees" as the network grows and the block reward shrinks is an open question. And the ability to facilitate "mobile payments" is nothing particularly special.) But where Bitcoin really shines is in the way it combines the reliable scarcity of a commodity like gold (the "store-of-value" aspect of money) with the transactional efficiency of a purely digital medium (the "medium-of-exchange" aspect of money). And so the real comparison is how does bitcoin's payment network compare to the "payment network" for gold (i.e. the process of passing around physical pieces of metal)? And the answer is pretty damn well.


highlight mine.

[cypherdoc]

holy shit.  this is big. 

i'm having trouble drinking from the fire hose of good news:

Coinbase Launches Bitcoin Buying and Selling in 13 European Countries

http://www.coindesk.com/coinbase-launches-bitcoin-buying-selling-13-european-countries/

[marcus_of_augustus]

WTF is this?

BBC: ISPs Should Assume Heavy VPN Users are Pirates

http://torrentfreak.com/bbc-isps-should-assume-heavy-vpn-users-are-pirates-140908/

.. that is unqualified ignorance, is what it is. Mostly corporate workers connecting to employer servers are biggest users of VPNs.

[ssmc2]

holy shit.  this is big. 

i'm having trouble drinking from the fire hose of good news:

Coinbase Launches Bitcoin Buying and Selling in 13 European Countries

http://www.coindesk.com/coinbase-launches-bitcoin-buying-selling-13-european-countries/

Here's some more to drink up 

http://www.coindesk.com/amagi-metals-ceo-bitcoin-replace-us-dollar/

[cypherdoc]

holy shit.  this is big.  

i'm having trouble drinking from the fire hose of good news:

Coinbase Launches Bitcoin Buying and Selling in 13 European Countries

http://www.coindesk.com/coinbase-launches-bitcoin-buying-selling-13-european-countries/

Here's some more to drink up  

http://www.coindesk.com/amagi-metals-ceo-bitcoin-replace-us-dollar/

gulp

that is good news but we need him to change the title to:

Amagi Metals CEO: Bitcoin Will Replace the US Dollar and Gold in My Lifetime

[ssmc2]

Haha agreed

[Erdogan]

Another commonly used indicator (for early deflation detection), is the Caterpillar company. It expands its profit (and debt to capital ratio), but the sales of machinery is down. This tells me that the company, like most large companies, is transforming from a production company to something like a bank.

http://www.caterpillar.com/en/investors/quarterly-results.html

I would be interested in the actual tonnage of machinery produced, which I suspect is also down, but I am too lazy to look for it now.

thanks for reminding me of them.  i usually follow them too but with what i think are all the stock mkt manipulations, i'm not sure how their stock price is reflective of what actually is going on other than entrenched Fed easing expectations or outright PPT pumping.

volume looks sick as hell and we have a lower high but what else is new considering the overall stock mkt indices looking like shit too:

Revenue from sales of equipment is down. Financials are up. The stock market is only interested in profit per share, and that is ok for stock trading, but if the tonnage of heavy machinery is down, that is deflationary. Their equipment is used in mining, in construction and in agriculture, and they are one of the largest producers.

[rocks]

Krugman is now hedging:

Do you think Bitcoin will gain momentum and become a viable currency?

No. I could be wrong, but Bitcoin is harder to use than other forms of electronic payment, and lacks any fundamental source of value (unlike dollars, which can be used to pay taxes). It’s possible that Bitcoin will somehow become self-supporting, but for now my guess is that it’s largely a fad that will collapse one of these days.

http://www.princetonmagazine.com/paul-krugman/

This is the error which is obvious to many here, but not many mainstream economists.

Bitcoin has enormous fundamental value because of its utility. Rapid, global, transfer of monetary value without third-party intervention, is fundamentally of value. The security of the system, through mining, and the cap on total issuance are pillars which makes the technology monetarily viable.

There is a subtlety here: the stored value of Bitcoin derives from its ability to transfer value.

Eventually Krugman will figure this out, but it will be hard to accept as he will still cling onto the inflation-is-good meme.

What gets me about his comments is even in the field of mainstream economics the utility of bitcoin should be apparent. Cyperdoc linked to a paper a while ago (couldn't find it) where a FED board member referred to fiat money as a historic "technical invention".

My initial response to this "technical invention" comment was very negative. I thought it was absurd to refer to fiat as a technology. But the more I thought about it the more it started to make sense. Bitcoin people talk about money as a ledger, and if you compare central bank fiat to physical gold, then in many ways it is easier to transact in and does function as a better ledger. Fiat's core failing is there is no limit on that ledger similar to what gold has, but the ability to transact in the "fiat ledger" is much easier than in the "physical gold ledger". From that perspective fiat is superior to gold. I never understood this until reading that "technical invention" comment.

So if mainstream economists see fiat money as a "technical invention" that has more utility over gold by being a ledger that is easier to transact in, then they should be able to see bitcoin as a superior "technical invention" since it has more utility over fiat by being a ledger that is even more easier to transact in (i.e. programmable money).

The fact that mainstream economists don't, makes me believe that either: a) they are ignoramus who don't understand their own field or b) are paid shills.

[cypherdoc]

Krugman is now hedging:

Do you think Bitcoin will gain momentum and become a viable currency?

No. I could be wrong, but Bitcoin is harder to use than other forms of electronic payment, and lacks any fundamental source of value (unlike dollars, which can be used to pay taxes). It’s possible that Bitcoin will somehow become self-supporting, but for now my guess is that it’s largely a fad that will collapse one of these days.

http://www.princetonmagazine.com/paul-krugman/

This is the error which is obvious to many here, but not many mainstream economists.

Bitcoin has enormous fundamental value because of its utility. Rapid, global, transfer of monetary value without third-party intervention, is fundamentally of value. The security of the system, through mining, and the cap on total issuance are pillars which makes the technology monetarily viable.

There is a subtlety here: the stored value of Bitcoin derives from its ability to transfer value.

Eventually Krugman will figure this out, but it will be hard to accept as he will still cling onto the inflation-is-good meme.

What gets me about his comments is even in the field of mainstream economics the utility of bitcoin should apparent. Cyperdoc linked to a paper a while ago (couldn't find it) where a FED board member referred to fiat money as a historic "technical invention".

My initial response to this "technical invention" comment was very negative. I thought it was absurd to refer to fiat as a technology. But the more I thought about it the more it started to make sense. Bitcoin people talk about money as a ledger, and if you compare central bank fiat to physical gold, then in many ways it is easier to transact in and does function as a better ledger. Fiat's core failing is there is no limit on that ledger similar to what gold has, but the ability to transact in the "fiat ledger" is much easier than in the "physical gold ledger". From that perspective fiat is superior to gold. I never understood this until reading that "technical invention" comment.

So if mainstream economists see fiat money as a "technical invention" that has more utility over gold by being a ledger that is easier to transact in, then they should be able to see bitcoin as a superior "technical invention" since it has more utility over fiat by being a ledger that is even more easier to transact in (i.e. programmable money).

The fact that mainstream economists don't, makes me believe that either: a) they are ignoramus who don't understand their own field or b) are paid shills.

When it comes to Krugman, I would probably vote "ignoramus".

Btw, I love that word. It always brings to mind "ignorant anus", which in this case, perfectly describes Krugman.

[Erdogan]

All the traits of good money work together to support the three functions of money. It can easily be used for indirect exchange (quick, borderless, no interference), is a good store of value (no government manipulation) and it is also good as a unit of account - this is supported by the traits fungibility and divisibility. The value is not completely stable, but no money is - get over it. If someone wants to count his wealth in bitcoins, he can. Counting in dollars is also possible, but over time you have to qualify each account by time, just as with bitcoins. If someone is using a piece of capital, like a taxi or an excavator, over say 5 years, he absolutely should qualify his accounts by date with the real value, else he would not be able to replace the capital when it is worn out (fooled by inflation, he would take too much out for consumption).

[Erdogan]

Krugman is now hedging:

Do you think Bitcoin will gain momentum and become a viable currency?

No. I could be wrong, but Bitcoin is harder to use than other forms of electronic payment, and lacks any fundamental source of value (unlike dollars, which can be used to pay taxes). It’s possible that Bitcoin will somehow become self-supporting, but for now my guess is that it’s largely a fad that will collapse one of these days.

http://www.princetonmagazine.com/paul-krugman/

This is the error which is obvious to many here, but not many mainstream economists.

Bitcoin has enormous fundamental value because of its utility. Rapid, global, transfer of monetary value without third-party intervention, is fundamentally of value. The security of the system, through mining, and the cap on total issuance are pillars which makes the technology monetarily viable.

There is a subtlety here: the stored value of Bitcoin derives from its ability to transfer value.

Eventually Krugman will figure this out, but it will be hard to accept as he will still cling onto the inflation-is-good meme.

What gets me about his comments is even in the field of mainstream economics the utility of bitcoin should apparent. Cyperdoc linked to a paper a while ago (couldn't find it) where a FED board member referred to fiat money as a historic "technical invention".

My initial response to this "technical invention" comment was very negative. I thought it was absurd to refer to fiat as a technology. But the more I thought about it the more it started to make sense. Bitcoin people talk about money as a ledger, and if you compare central bank fiat to physical gold, then in many ways it is easier to transact in and does function as a better ledger. Fiat's core failing is there is no limit on that ledger similar to what gold has, but the ability to transact in the "fiat ledger" is much easier than in the "physical gold ledger". From that perspective fiat is superior to gold. I never understood this until reading that "technical invention" comment.

So if mainstream economists see fiat money as a "technical invention" that has more utility over gold by being a ledger that is easier to transact in, then they should be able to see bitcoin as a superior "technical invention" since it has more utility over fiat by being a ledger that is even more easier to transact in (i.e. programmable money).

The fact that mainstream economists don't, makes me believe that either: a) they are ignoramus who don't understand their own field or b) are paid shills.

When it comes to Krugman, I would probably vote "ignoramus".

Btw, I love that word. It always brings to mind "ignorant anus", which in this case, perfectly describes Krugman.

He should really go down the toilet of history, when reality calls. But these flock people slip out of your hands like eels. When they are wrong, they can hide behind each other in turn, saying this was completely unforeseeable. He will probably get his second Sweedish Riksbanks economic price to the memory of Alfred Nobel, after the crisis have flattened civilization. Nobel hated economists, for a reason.

[Adrian-x]

Krugman serves the ruling class who derive their wealth and lifestyle from their ability to be the first spenders of newly-printed money.

Of course he's never going to acknowledge that Bitcoin's limited supply is what makes it superior - his job is to help keep the hoi polloi ignorant of how they are being robbed.

The job of an economist is to cloak theft in the mantle of science to reduce the cost of keeping the masses compliant.

Love summary, if there is one thing I wish I understood when I left university it is the above.

Just knowing this explain why big company away aquifer competition or innovation instead of developing it, they spend new money per inflation and profit post inflation.

This kills the profitability of small businesses that operate on a cash positive basis, there strength - no debt becomes there weakness. 

times are changing.

[cypherdoc]

oh yes, dismantling 1809 BTC ask wall @Bitfinex

[Melbustus]

...

What gets me about his comments is even in the field of mainstream economics the utility of bitcoin should be apparent. Cyperdoc linked to a paper a while ago (couldn't find it) where a FED board member referred to fiat money as a historic "technical invention".

My initial response to this "technical invention" comment was very negative. I thought it was absurd to refer to fiat as a technology. But the more I thought about it the more it started to make sense. Bitcoin people talk about money as a ledger, and if you compare central bank fiat to physical gold, then in many ways it is easier to transact in and does function as a better ledger. Fiat's core failing is there is no limit on that ledger similar to what gold has, but the ability to transact in the "fiat ledger" is much easier than in the "physical gold ledger". From that perspective fiat is superior to gold. I never understood this until reading that "technical invention" comment.

So if mainstream economists see fiat money as a "technical invention" that has more utility over gold by being a ledger that is easier to transact in, then they should be able to see bitcoin as a superior "technical invention" since it has more utility over fiat by being a ledger that is even more easier to transact in (i.e. programmable money).

The fact that mainstream economists don't, makes me believe that either: a) they are ignoramus who don't understand their own field or b) are paid shills.

It's the "Money is Memory" argument that most resonated with me. Bank accounts, Rai stones, sea-shells, redeemable paper certificates, tally sticks, fiat paper notes, and handing each other chunks of metal are all just ways to keep record of how much value one person/entity has contributed to another. Then, yeah, it's natural to realize that the mechanism (what we call "money") by which we do said accounting is a technology. And bitcoin is the absolute best at satisfying the core function of money as global, instant, cheap-to-use, immutable memory.


Here's the Fed paper I think you're referring to: Money is Memory (pdf) (Kocherlakota, 1996)

And here's the corresponding bitcoin paper: Bitcoin is Memory (Luther, Olson, 2013)

[cypherdoc]

[cypherdoc]

take it down...

[blaaaaacksuit]

take it down...

I'm getting really sick of these dudes.

[cypherdoc]

take it down...

I'm getting really sick of these dudes.

it's really quite fascinating price action, or inaction, one might say.

to my mind, they're blocking walls.  someone needs to keep the price down.  but yeah, they seem to have an endless supply of coins.  the good news is that the buyers are getting bolder and buying up everything right up to the edge of the large ask walls.  the spread, instead of increasing, is decreasing as buyers get more comfortable knowing that the ask walls aren't going to suddenly market sell and wipe out the bid side.  buyers are slowly eating them away and it's just a matter of time.