Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2016, 10:21:06 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   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 ... 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 [594] 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1808592 times)
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
September 10, 2014, 11:27:30 PM
 #11861

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.
1481451666
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481451666

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481451666
Reply with quote  #2

1481451666
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481451666
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481451666

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481451666
Reply with quote  #2

1481451666
Report to moderator
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
September 11, 2014, 12:13:08 AM
 #11862

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 11, 2014, 12:22:06 AM
 #11863

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
September 11, 2014, 12:30:43 AM
 #11864

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
September 11, 2014, 12:39:40 AM
 #11865

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
September 11, 2014, 12:54:42 AM
 #11866

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.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 11, 2014, 01:42:24 AM
 #11867

oh yes, dismantling 1809 BTC ask wall @Bitfinex
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
September 11, 2014, 01:46:45 AM
 #11868

...

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)

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.
Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 11, 2014, 02:28:11 AM
 #11869



cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 11, 2014, 04:35:15 AM
 #11870

take it down...
blaaaaacksuit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280

Who cares?


View Profile
September 11, 2014, 04:48:31 AM
 #11871

take it down...

I'm getting really sick of these dudes.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 11, 2014, 04:59:48 AM
 #11872

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.
blaaaaacksuit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280

Who cares?


View Profile
September 11, 2014, 05:06:51 AM
 #11873

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.

The manipulators must react to the change in buyer sentiment if they're going to continue their game.  If you can see the change, then they can as well.  Like you said, they seem to have a hell of a lot of coins, and if walls don't scare the crowd anymore, they might resort to flash dumps.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 11, 2014, 05:07:49 AM
 #11874

if i were a little guy and actually wanted to sell, instead of cutting in front of the large ask wall, i'd get behind them by a few dollars.  b/c to me, the large ask walls don't really want to sell and if they get wiped out or pull their large ask walls, the price should suddenly shoot up those few dollars and the real little seller would get a better price.
thefunkybits
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728



View Profile
September 11, 2014, 05:07:57 AM
 #11875

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.

Yup +1

I was thinking the same, these walls don't seem to phase us anymore.

The boy has cried wolf time and time again and the gig is almost up!

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 11, 2014, 05:10:25 AM
 #11876

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.

The manipulators must react to the change in buyer sentiment if they're going to continue their game.  If you can see the change, then they can as well.  Like you said, they seem to have a hell of a lot of coins, and if walls don't scare the crowd anymore, they might resort to flash dumps.

yeah, this is a stand down/off.  i don't recall any of these big walls executing a flash dump as you say.  thus again, i think they are blocking walls.  but you're right, their game is coming to a close so they'll have to change strategy.
blaaaaacksuit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280

Who cares?


View Profile
September 11, 2014, 05:16:04 AM
 #11877

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.

The manipulators must react to the change in buyer sentiment if they're going to continue their game.  If you can see the change, then they can as well.  Like you said, they seem to have a hell of a lot of coins, and if walls don't scare the crowd anymore, they might resort to flash dumps.

yeah, this is a stand down/off.  i don't recall any of these big walls executing a flash dump as you say.  thus again, i think they are blocking walls.  but you're right, their game is coming to a close so they'll have to change strategy.

The other question is who are they and where did they get all these coins that they don't mind dumping at a "discount".
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 11, 2014, 05:20:58 AM
 #11878

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.

The manipulators must react to the change in buyer sentiment if they're going to continue their game.  If you can see the change, then they can as well.  Like you said, they seem to have a hell of a lot of coins, and if walls don't scare the crowd anymore, they might resort to flash dumps.

yeah, this is a stand down/off.  i don't recall any of these big walls executing a flash dump as you say.  thus again, i think they are blocking walls.  but you're right, their game is coming to a close so they'll have to change strategy.

The other question is who are they and where did they get all these coins that they don't mind dumping at a "discount".

who knows but i'm not sure flash dumping would be a viable strategy if you're the trader tasked with accumulating coins below a certain price.  it would be too risky.  but who knows for sure; it could be a real seller after all who just wants us to over read the situation.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 11, 2014, 05:25:59 AM
 #11879

the blocking walls still haven't budged.  i think they're meant to cause nervous, weak hand small traders to cut in front and market sell the price down for them.  don't get fooled.
blaaaaacksuit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280

Who cares?


View Profile
September 11, 2014, 05:34:00 AM
 #11880



who knows but i'm not sure flash dumping would be a viable strategy if you're the trader tasked with accumulating coins below a certain price.  it would be too risky.  but who knows for sure; it could be a real seller after all who just wants us to over read the situation.

Yea, I suppose anything is possible but currently I'm leaning towards the manipulation side.  The way these walls just chase the bids down whenever the dumping starts is interesting to watch.  I sure am ready for the next "spurt" though!
Pages: « 1 ... 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 [594] 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 ... 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!