Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 10:32:44 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 ... 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] 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805000 times)
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
September 20, 2014, 06:34:49 PM
 #12461

this is one disturbing piece of propaganda that has nothing to do with Bitcoin.  note the concept of trapping ppl into a digital cash system with negative interest rates.  this is Ken Rogoff's (Harvard economist) idea:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2gxr93/the_economist_the_benefits_of_getting_rid_of_cash/

Economists pretty much all work for government, or want to.  Some are at Universities on government grants or state univeristies.
Its rare to find one that is not corrupted by statist interests, always hopeful though.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
1481020364
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481020364

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481020364
Reply with quote  #2

1481020364
Report to moderator
1481020364
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481020364

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481020364
Reply with quote  #2

1481020364
Report to moderator
1481020364
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481020364

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481020364
Reply with quote  #2

1481020364
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481020364
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481020364

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481020364
Reply with quote  #2

1481020364
Report to moderator
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128



View Profile
September 20, 2014, 06:38:16 PM
 #12462

the Bitcoin Virus won't stop replicating:



Someone over at blockchin reads this thread, that chart looks a lot more smooth.
Still this hashing increase is in my view is phenomenal.

It is absolutely phenomenal.

However note that the rate of growth has started to slow down instead of speed up at around November '13:




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

Activity: 1554



View Profile
September 20, 2014, 07:13:31 PM
 #12463

...
However note that the rate of growth has started to slow down instead of speed up at around November '13:







That's actually kinda good. The sooner we get to a mature mining market, the better for the security of bitcoin in general. I'll consider bitcoin a little less exposed when a few things happen:

1) There are no more hash/watt exponential gains to be had from a mining-tech jump; eg, going from 28nm ASICs to 22nm, etc. We may at that point now, actually. The gains from new process tech are certainly diminishing (as the taper in difficulty rise probably shows).

2) The power requirements of a 51% are an order of magnitude bigger than the world's largest datacenters.


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
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128



View Profile
September 20, 2014, 07:34:08 PM
 #12464

...
However note that the rate of growth has started to slow down instead of speed up at around November '13:







That's actually kinda good. The sooner we get to a mature mining market, the better for the security of bitcoin in general. I'll consider bitcoin a little less exposed when a few things happen:

1) There are no more hash/watt exponential gains to be had from a mining-tech jump; eg, going from 28nm ASICs to 22nm, etc. We may at that point now, actually. The gains from new process tech are certainly diminishing (as the taper in difficulty rise probably shows).

2) The power requirements of a 51% are an order of magnitude bigger than the world's largest datacenters.



I also look forward to a 'saturated' mining market. Miners would operate at marginal cost and a very large part of expenses would be operational (power, maintenance), not capital investment. Everything else being equal (especially bitcoin price), hashrate should then grow according to moore's law and miners would sell close to all coins into markets.

Last year I've been thinking we might reach your point 1.) in the first half of 2014. This hasn't materialized, mining technology is still improving faster than moore (still catching up on other fronts).

I'm not sure your point 2.) means less danger for bitcoin. A 51% attack could be distributed across multiple datacenters or done using pools. It's hard for me to imagine someone (govt?) doing a 51% attack this way anyway. The most likely scenario I think would be governments forcing miners (51% of them) to censor transactions and consider blocks containing censored transactions as invalid. But for that to be a meaningful tool for them (say they want to cut off wikileaks for example) they first need to have better coin-tracking (hello coinbase, circle,...)

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 20, 2014, 07:37:47 PM
 #12465

...
However note that the rate of growth has started to slow down instead of speed up at around November '13:







That's actually kinda good.


I actually agree.

There's been so many millions thrown into mining hardware you'd think the network is first and foremost trying to fortify itself from a future attack no matter the price of bitcoin. But now, since the cost to produce a bitcoin exceeds the reward, we should expect a lot of those speculative millions to head into exchanges instead for direct purchases.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 20, 2014, 08:06:26 PM
 #12466

After Uber, San Francisco Has Seen a 65-Percent Decline in Cab Use

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/09/what-uber-is-doing-to-cabs-in-san-francisco-in-1-crazy-chart/380378/
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
September 20, 2014, 08:18:46 PM
 #12467

...
2) The power requirements of a 51% are an order of magnitude bigger than the world's largest datacenters.

Here's an interesting calculation:  

With the current block reward (25 BTC), each hour approximately 150 BTC (6 x 25) are produced.  At an exchange rate of $400/BTC, that's $60,000 of coins.  

In a competitive market, the price of a commodity tends to its cost of production.  As a "rough estimate," let's assume that this production cost is entirely electricity.  At $0.05 / kW-hr, one could purchase 1.2 GW of electricity to produce those 150 BTC:  

     ($60,000/hr)  /  ($0.05/kW-hr) = 1,200,000 kW = 1.2 GW.

Assuming an attacker was adding new hashing power to conduct the 51% attack, the attack miners would need to consume approximately the same amount of electrical power. That's the same order of magnitude as the installed capacity at the Hoover dam (2.08 GW) on the Colorado River:




The dam with the largest installed capacity is the Three-Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River in China (22.5 GW) shown below.  If the bitcoin price were $7500, it would require this dam running at fully capacity powering bitcoin miners to 51% attack the network.  




It's interesting to imagine all that water in the dam's reservoir pushing the wheels inside the dam's turbines, which then push electrons through the gates of a bunch of SHA256 ASICs.  That's the scale of power required to conduct an attack.

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

Activity: 1554



View Profile
September 20, 2014, 08:30:22 PM
 #12468


...
I'm not sure your point 2.) means less danger for bitcoin. A 51% attack could be distributed across multiple datacenters or done using pools. It's hard for me to imagine someone (govt?) doing a 51% attack this way anyway. The most likely scenario I think would be governments forcing miners (51% of them) to censor transactions and consider blocks containing censored transactions as invalid. But for that to be a meaningful tool for them (say they want to cut off wikileaks for example) they first need to have better coin-tracking (hello coinbase, circle,...)



With regards to distributing across many datacenters: hence my "several orders of magnitude more" requirement. ... But co-opting pools is another issue. That could get interesting; eg, how much censorship has to happen before individual miners jump to P2Pool? Then the game is to co-opt a sufficient number of huge individual miners.

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 20, 2014, 08:33:02 PM
 #12469

...
2) The power requirements of a 51% are an order of magnitude bigger than the world's largest datacenters.

Here's an interesting calculation:  

With the current block reward (25 BTC), each hour approximately 150 BTC (6 x 25) are produced.  At an exchange rate of $400/BTC, that's $60,000 of coins.  

In a competitive market, the price of a commodity tends to its cost of production.  As a "rough estimate," let's assume that this production cost is entirely electricity.  At $0.05 / kW-hr, one could purchase 1.2 GW of electricity each hour to produce those bitcoins 150 BTC:  

     ($60,000/hr)  /  ($0.05/kW-hr) = 1,200,000 kW = 1.2 GW.

Assuming an attacker was adding new hashing power to conduct the 51% attack, the attack miners would need to consume approximately the same amount of electrical power. That's the same order of magnitude as the installed capacity at the Hoover dam (2.08 GW) on the Colorado River:




The dam with the largest installed capacity is the Three-Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River in China (22.5 GW) shown below.  If the bitcoin price were $7500, it would require this dam running at fully capacity powering bitcoin miners to 51% attack the network.  




It's interesting to imagine all that water in the dam's reservoir pushing the wheels inside the dam's turbines, which then push electrons through the gates of a bunch of SHA256 ASICs.  That's the scale of power required to conduct an attack.


Those are interesting numbers.

I've made this argument in the past; that an attack by an NSA would more likely have to come from one location for maximum security and secrecy purposes.  These figures make me more comfortable.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 20, 2014, 08:36:21 PM
 #12470


...
I'm not sure your point 2.) means less danger for bitcoin. A 51% attack could be distributed across multiple datacenters or done using pools. It's hard for me to imagine someone (govt?) doing a 51% attack this way anyway. The most likely scenario I think would be governments forcing miners (51% of them) to censor transactions and consider blocks containing censored transactions as invalid. But for that to be a meaningful tool for them (say they want to cut off wikileaks for example) they first need to have better coin-tracking (hello coinbase, circle,...)



With regards to distributing across many datacenters: hence my "several orders of magnitude more" requirement. ... But co-opting pools is another issue. That could get interesting; eg, how much censorship has to happen before individual miners jump to P2Pool? Then the game is to co-opt a sufficient number of huge individual miners.

Co opting pool owners is going to be very hard to do. Many of these guys are libertarians at heart and more likely to fight back by going to the press or hiring lawyers. Lavabit is a great example.

Plus, there are secret ways of notifying others that you're under duress.  
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
September 20, 2014, 08:38:13 PM
 #12471

...

     ($60,000/hr)  /  ($0.05/kW-hr) = 1,200,000 kW = 1.2 GW.

Assuming an attacker was adding new hashing power to conduct the 51% attack, the attack miners would need to consume approximately the same amount of electrical power. That's the same order of magnitude as the installed capacity at the Hoover dam (2.08 GW) on the Colorado River:

...

The dam with the largest installed capacity is the Three-Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River in China (22.5 GW) shown below.  If the bitcoin price were $7500, it would require this dam running at fully capacity powering bitcoin miners to 51% attack the network.  

...

It's interesting to imagine all that water in the dam's reservoir pushing the wheels inside the dam's turbines, which then push electrons through the gates of a bunch of SHA256 ASICs.  That's the scale of power required to conduct an attack.



Indeed, I think those calcs are pretty interesting....and I hadn't realized just how much power the Three-Gorges Dam generates....wow.

The ridiculous 51% attack scenario is probably secret nuclear-powered datacenters. With new nuclear power-plants in the 1.5GW range, the hashrate only needs to grow another 2-4 orders of magnitude to be relatively safe from that. Of course, I agree with molecular that a brute-51%-force attack is really unlikely. Bitcoin is far more likely to be attacked in the censorship-via-regulation vein; but then, you have to get pretty tight regulatory-agreement amongst essentially all developed jurisdictions in the world in order for it to be ultimately effective.

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 20, 2014, 08:40:29 PM
 #12472

...

     ($60,000/hr)  /  ($0.05/kW-hr) = 1,200,000 kW = 1.2 GW.

Assuming an attacker was adding new hashing power to conduct the 51% attack, the attack miners would need to consume approximately the same amount of electrical power. That's the same order of magnitude as the installed capacity at the Hoover dam (2.08 GW) on the Colorado River:

...

The dam with the largest installed capacity is the Three-Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River in China (22.5 GW) shown below.  If the bitcoin price were $7500, it would require this dam running at fully capacity powering bitcoin miners to 51% attack the network.  

...

It's interesting to imagine all that water in the dam's reservoir pushing the wheels inside the dam's turbines, which then push electrons through the gates of a bunch of SHA256 ASICs.  That's the scale of power required to conduct an attack.



Indeed, I think those calcs are pretty interesting....and I hadn't realized just how much power the Three-Gorges Dam generates....wow.

The ridiculous 51% attack scenario is probably secret nuclear-powered datacenters. With new nuclear power-plants in the 1.5GW range, the hashrate only needs to grow another 2-4 orders of magnitude to be relatively safe from that. Of course, I agree with molecular that a brute-51%-force attack is really unlikely. Bitcoin is far more likely to be attacked in the censorship-via-regulation vein; but then, you have to get pretty tight regulatory-agreement amongst essentially all developed jurisdictions in the world in order for it to be ultimately effective.

I'm sure China and Russia stand ready to help the US in any way that it can  Wink
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
September 20, 2014, 08:41:58 PM
 #12473

the Bitcoin Virus won't stop replicating:



Someone over at blockchin reads this thread, that chart looks a lot more smooth.
Still this hashing increase is in my view is phenomenal.

It is absolutely phenomenal.

However note that the rate of growth has started to slow down instead of speed up at around November '13:





It is speeding up if you zoom in the next difficulty is 18% on top of about a 10% increase. The short term is going to be around 15% every 2 weeks as planned inventory comes online and we may plateau if price falls (like 2011)

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
World
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 746



View Profile
September 20, 2014, 08:42:59 PM
 #12474

Re: It's about time to turn off PoW mining
and
Re: Projected Minimum Cost per BTC over the next year

Supporting people with beautiful creative ideas. Bitcoin is because of the developers,exchanges,merchants,miners,investors,users,machines and blockchain technologies work together.
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
September 20, 2014, 09:01:19 PM
 #12475

...
In a competitive market, the price of a commodity tends to its cost of production.
...


In the following, the author argues that it's counter-intuitively the other way around for bitcoin: http://cryptonomics.org/2014/09/16/some-crypto-quibbles-with-threadneedle-street/

Quote
So the exchange value of the mining award determines the marginal costs rather than the other way round. An economist might find that pretty weird, but that is how it works.

...Economists are used to thinking in terms of prices (ephemeral market stuff) being a function of costs (stuff that is “material” and “real”, like a production function). But the way the Bitcoin protocol works, the hashing costs of the network are a function of the mining award’s market value. I’m not saying it’s a nice feature of the protocol. But it is what it is.


Some interesting points made in that piece (a bunch of which I disagree with (on first pass, at least), but interesting nonetheless).

The following passage seems especially relevant to the PoS discussion recently:

Quote
In my opinion, the most important innovation of hash-based proof-of-work isn’t its solution to the problem of distributed consensus, for which there are arguably better solutions. Rather, the real innovation is the way in which this energy intensive defence against the Sybil attack makes the marginal cost of proof-of-work fiat money meaningfully non-zero, refuting the argument above. The scheme’s seigniorage doesn’t really accrue to anyone. Instead, it gets burned up in hashing blocks, where the marginal cost of producing a new set of coins equals the cost of solving the hash problem on the block that brings the new coins into existence. There is no coin “issuer”, scarcity comes into existence ex nihilo.

And this “seigniorage burning” isn’t a complete waste, as my metaphor might suggest and an economist will wrongly suspect as “inefficient”, for it has the side-effect of bootstrapping a solution to the distributed consensus problem and thereby creating a distributed payment system on which the value can be transferred (a coin can’t be scarce if it can be double spent). After all, shouldn’t seigniorage be spent on a public good? I think that this is conceptually beautiful, and it deserves to be a chapter in the micro foundations of money economics, whatever its ultimate fate ends up being. The first credible scheme for credibly rationing the supply of privately produced fiat currency.

The dominant narrative to-date has been that digital currencies like Bitcoin have value because of the utility of the distributed payments system combined with an (eventually) fixed coin supply. I think that the latter belief is unfounded. It’s not the fixed supply of a coin that makes it scarce, but rather the marginal cost of producing the coin that makes it so.

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
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
September 20, 2014, 09:21:35 PM
 #12476


It always surprises me how common this line of reasoning is (I'm referring to the OP in the linked thread), even among those who've been involved with bitcoin for a while.  In addition to the likely-unresolveable technical problem regarding nothing-at-stake with PoS [cue kodtycoon], people miss the fact that the "mining cost" is due to the inflation schedule rather than strictly due to the PoW.  If there's 25 BTC up for grabs each 10 minutes, and the process to win those 25 BTC is competitive, then somehow the average cost to acquire those new bitcoins must approach the price to buy 25 bitcoins from an exchange.  The reason is that market participants will be happy to consume up to 24.9xx BTC worth of real resources to compete for them.  

The only way to avoid this is to eliminate the competition for the block reward, for instance, by awarding new coins in proportion to how many coins we already hold.  But that's no different than moving the decimal point and then pretending we all have 10X as many coins!  It's completely missing the point of bitcoin's inflation schedule (which is to distribute coins to a wider number of people).  

...
In a competitive market, the price of a commodity tends to its cost of production.
...
In the following, the author argues that it's counter-intuitively the other way around for bitcoin: http://cryptonomics.org/2014/09/16/some-crypto-quibbles-with-threadneedle-street/

Agreed.  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
September 21, 2014, 05:51:34 AM
 #12477


Thanks for the reference this is big news for those not aware of the dynamic something's got to give, I'm not sure what it is either way I felt getting back into mining was a good hedge.

Re PoW it's not time to change it, if or when Bitcoin hits the next order of magnitude in value, every one is going to know about it and energy choice people and collectives (city's) make are going to bring in more efficiencies as we'll be re-assessing the value of electricity. It's going to have global impact and a profound reevaluation on consumers priorities.   

Bitcoin will go virtual and the disruption will be monumental.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Xiaoxiao
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092


The Golden Rule Rules


View Profile
September 21, 2014, 06:02:09 AM
 #12478

51% attack is inevitable, that is if bitcoin gets anywhere, which it probably won't.

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
███████████
██████████
█████▄█████
█████████
██████████
███████████
███████████
███████████
█████████
████████
███████████
███████████
███████████
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
███████████
██████████
█████▄█████
█████████
███████████
███████████
██████████
█████████
███████████
███████████
███████████
██████████
███████████
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
BetcoinRakeback.com
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
███████████
█████████
█████▀█████
█████████
███████████
██████████
███████████
███████████
███████████
███████████
███████████
██████████
███████████
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
███████████
█████████
█████▀█████
█████████
███████████
████▄█▄████
███████████
████▄█▄████
█████████
████████
███████████
███████████
███████████
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 21, 2014, 06:06:24 AM
 #12479

51% attack is inevitable, that is if bitcoin gets anywhere, which it probably won't.

It's not inevitable for all the reasons elucidated throughout this thread numerous times.  
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
September 21, 2014, 07:07:52 AM
 #12480

Re the two articles from BOE: Basically, progress.

They now fully understands the technology and the invention. (First article).

The second article basically says that it is conceivable bitcoin could take over, but it is extermely unlikely.

They don't know, I don't know, so their guess is as good as mine.

They base this likelihood on some perceived defects in the system, and some money theory I disagree with.

a) The three functions of money. They note that houses can be money in the storage of money function, but not in the exchange function. This is wrong, because if you can not exchange, it can also not be money. The fact that you normally exchange houses for fiat is not relevant; money can be changed for money, it is also an exchange. Houses are not good money of course, the fact that they are money is only due to the failure of fiat money as a long time store of value.

They note that bitcoin is not a unit of account. This is only correct since bitcoin is not used much at all, but again, it can not be money unless it can also be a unit of account, the crucial traits here are that they are divisible and fungible, bitcoins are the best money in that regard.

b) They focus on volatility, not understanding that all money are volatile. Bitcoin is more volatile than some fiats at the moment, but have the potential to be just as stable as the pound. Some fiat money going to zero is also volatility.

c) They believe that transaction fees will have to go up, to be more expensive than current transaction costs in the bank system. This should be the result of miners overinvesting, this point of view is an instance of the labour theory of value, which is bogous.

The price of transactions is market based, and after block rewards they can be higher, but, with high costs, transactions will be supplied by businesses, with only clearing transactions performed on the block chain. There are lots of other reasons for this to be true.

They also conflate block reward and transaction fees. They add up the total cost of the system, but as a payer you do not consider the block reward, only the fee. So the transaction cost is the fee.

d) They believe that an eventual contraction of mining power will lead to a monopoly. Heck, their arguments should logically lead them to believe that monopoly in mining will occur in all cases. Anyway, they do not understand that the only relevant monopolies occur with the help of government restrictions with subsequently extended privileges. An eventual monopoly in mining would be based on merit, be short lived, and is not more likely than in any submarket. Only if you define the market narrowly, you can find monopolies, and if you define the markets to be indivisibly small, they are all monopolies.

e) Maybe the most important part of the article is the money management aspects. Seen from a statist view, bitcoin is a threat to stability. They do not consider the master slave tendency of the current system, because they are close to the masters.



Pages: « 1 ... 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] 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 ... 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!