Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

WTF?  these guys are simply out of hand:

U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-30/u-s-seeks-to-reverse-apple-android-data-locking-decision.html

[1714201874]

1714201874

[1714201874]

1714201874

[1714201874]

1714201874

[rocks]

WTF?  these guys are simply out of hand:

U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-30/u-s-seeks-to-reverse-apple-android-data-locking-decision.html

“This is a very bad idea,” said Cathy Lanier, chief of the Washington Metropolitan Police Department, in an interview. Smartphone communication is “going to be the preferred method of the pedophile and the criminal. We are going to lose a lot of investigative opportunities.”

Every single one of you is a pedophile or terrorist until proven innocent. Don't you care about the children.

[cypherdoc]

WTF?  these guys are simply out of hand:

U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-30/u-s-seeks-to-reverse-apple-android-data-locking-decision.html

“This is a very bad idea,” said Cathy Lanier, chief of the Washington Metropolitan Police Department, in an interview. Smartphone communication is “going to be the preferred method of the pedophile and the criminal. We are going to lose a lot of investigative opportunities.”

Every single one of you is a pedophile or terrorist until proven innocent. Don't you care about the children.

i'm sure Apple, Google and many other tech companies are noticing purchasers are avoiding US products these days and instead doing their buying overseas.  all b/c of gvt intrusive policies.

[NewLiberty]

WTF?  these guys are simply out of hand:

U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-30/u-s-seeks-to-reverse-apple-android-data-locking-decision.html

“This is a very bad idea,” said Cathy Lanier, chief of the Washington Metropolitan Police Department, in an interview. Smartphone communication is “going to be the preferred method of the pedophile and the criminal. We are going to lose a lot of investigative opportunities.”

Every single one of you is a pedophile or terrorist until proven innocent. Don't you care about the children.

i'm sure Apple, Google and many other tech companies are noticing purchasers are avoiding US products these days and instead doing their buying overseas.  all b/c of gvt intrusive policies.

https://www.blackphone.ch/

[tabnloz]

"So banks could, for example, make intra-banking transfers more efficient and cheaper by using block chain technology at the transport layer, with the SWIFT messaging system on top. (SWIFT is the global organization that each day handles financial transactions such as wire transfers for more than 9,000 banks).

Many are reviewing the technology. Citi says it is evaluating Bitcoin and the block chain. So is Israel’s Bank Hapoalim. “We are starting to think what exactly we can do with this,” says Gigi Ashkenazi, the Israeli bank’s chief technology officer. “We can’t ignore it, but regulation is very strict. It’s a Catch-22.”

http://www.informilo.com/2014/09/banks-can-cash-bitcoin/

The question has changed.

From 'Will Bitcoin become mainstream?' to 'How can banks remain profitable and relevant?'

[justusranvier]

there's no way any of the ETF's will allow settlement for retail investors with the underlying, be it gold or BTC.

This is why any retails who buy a Bitcoin ETF are fools.

All they'll accomplish is give Wall Street their money so somebody else can have bitcoins.

[cbeast]

there's no way any of the ETF's will allow settlement for retail investors with the underlying, be it gold or BTC.

This is why any retails who buy a Bitcoin ETF are fools.

All they'll accomplish is give Wall Street their money so somebody else can have bitcoins.

Is that what you mean? Not everyone has a lot of cash to buy bitcoins. Instead they have funds locked into tax shelters and a Bitcoin ETF might be a good option.

[cypherdoc]

Looks like I covered DZZ & ZSL at the right time. 

Glad to see the stock market down. It may in fact be thata  financial dislocation is what it takes to stimulate the next Bitcoin rally.

[justusranvier]

Not everyone has a lot of cash to buy bitcoins. Instead they have funds locked into tax shelters and a Bitcoin ETF might be a good option.

The truth is they already gave their money to Wall Street a long time ago and have little-to-no hope of ever seeing it again, whether or not they invest in a Bitcoin ETF.

[notme]

WTF?  these guys are simply out of hand:

U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-30/u-s-seeks-to-reverse-apple-android-data-locking-decision.html

“What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law,” Comey said.

They are marketing it as a privacy feature.  If seeking privacy means you are going "beyond the law", maybe decades of law enforcement overreaching and seeking extensions of the laws into our personal lives is the problem.

Besides, if they take it away from the default install they will only remove if from the average consumer who isn't breaking laws.  The criminals will root their phones and use encryption anyway.  They can't stop this unless they make rooting illegal, and even that will only slow it down slightly.  If it comes to that, I'm fucking out of here.  I won't live in a country where it is illegal to own a general purpose computer that can run software that doesn't have the approval of government and corporate overlords.

[cypherdoc]

must listen podcast of Robert Murphy by Tom Woods on Bitcoin and the Regression Theorum.  it's a little past halfway in the podcast:

http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp

Murphy's Conclusions:

1.  Bitcoin is unique in that it was developed from the start to be a form of money and did not evolve as a commodity.
2.  Bitcoin leapfrogged the barter phase whereby it would have established it's own relative value (intrinsic value) as a commodity in the market place against other items prior to becoming a medium of exchange.
3.  the Regression Theorum is too restrictive as it could not have predicted something as innovative as Bitcoin.

i extend his conclusions to say the Jeffrey Tucker's theory that Bitcoin only has value primarily b/c of it's payment network to be wrong.  Woods alludes to Tucker's theory in the interview but clearly disagrees with it.  Woods makes the correct argument that the reason ppl value the payment network is b/c the Bitcoin currency has value to begin with.  IOW, the payment network would be worthless if Bitcoin the currency was worthless.  this is where Andreas is also wrong when he says Bitcoin the currency is merely the 1st app existing on what is the real value, the blockchain and that they can be separated.  same argument as Tucker's, same wrong conclusion.

also by extension, Konrad Graf's theory that the RT is consistent with Bitcoin's origin is also tenuous, if not wrong, altho not quite as aggregious in its conclusions as Tucker and Andreas.  as far as i'm concerned, Mises is a great economist who was right on just about all things except for the fact that his RT did not, and could not, have been expected to have predicted something like Bitcoin which depends on the Internet and a scale of global communication never before seen in human history.

my final conclusion is the same one i've had since i started with Bitcoin back in 2011, and that is that Bitcoin the currency is inextricably linked to Bitcoin the blockchain and Bitcoin the payment network. 

[justusranvier]

3.  the Regression Theorum is too restrictive as it could not have predicted something as innovative as Bitcoin.

Nick Szebo has a theory of money origins that has more explanatory power.

[Trader Steve]

there's no way any of the ETF's will allow settlement for retail investors with the underlying, be it gold or BTC.

This is why any retails who buy a Bitcoin ETF are fools.

All they'll accomplish is give Wall Street their money so somebody else can have bitcoins.

Is that what you mean? Not everyone has a lot of cash to buy bitcoins. Instead they have funds locked into tax shelters and a Bitcoin ETF might be a good option.

1. Set up a Self-Directed IRA
2. Have the IRA transfer funds to an LLC of which you are the manager
3. Buy bitcoins (take possession on behalf of the LLC)
4. Store securely via your preferred method.

EDIT: For clarification, the IRA would invest in the LLC by buying all the shares/units. The LLC then, in turn, invests in bitcoin and takes possession.

[NewLiberty]

WTF?  these guys are simply out of hand:

U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-30/u-s-seeks-to-reverse-apple-android-data-locking-decision.html

“What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law,” Comey said.

They are marketing it as a privacy feature.  If seeking privacy means you are going "beyond the law", maybe decades of law enforcement overreaching and seeking extensions of the laws into our personal lives is the problem.

Besides, if they take it away from the default install they will only remove if from the average consumer who isn't breaking laws.  The criminals will root their phones and use encryption anyway.  They can't stop this unless they make rooting illegal, and even that will only slow it down slightly.  If it comes to that, I'm fucking out of here.  I won't live in a country where it is illegal to own a general purpose computer that can run software that doesn't have the approval of government and corporate overlords.

This is less paternalism, and more, I don't know, 14yr old insecure girl syndrome.  "What are they saying?  Are they talking about me?"
This government has gone nuts.  Next they will outlaw envelopes.

[Melbustus]

must listen podcast of Robert Murphy by Tom Woods on Bitcoin and the Regression Theorum.  it's a little past halfway in the podcast:

http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp

Murphy's Conclusions:

1.  Bitcoin is unique in that it was developed from the start to be a form of money and did not evolve as a commodity.
2.  Bitcoin leapfrogged the barter phase whereby it would have established it's own relative value (intrinsic value) as a commodity in the market place against other items prior to becoming a medium of exchange.
3.  the Regression Theorum is too restrictive as it could not have predicted something as innovative as Bitcoin.

i extend his conclusions to say the Jeffrey Tucker's theory that Bitcoin only has value primarily b/c of it's payment network to be wrong.  Woods alludes to Tucker's theory in the interview but clearly disagrees with it.  Woods makes the correct argument that the reason ppl value the payment network is b/c the Bitcoin currency has value to begin with.  IOW, the payment network would be worthless if Bitcoin the currency was worthless.  this is where Andreas is also wrong when he says Bitcoin the currency is merely the 1st app existing on what is the real value, the blockchain and that they can be separated.  same argument as Tucker's, same wrong conclusion.

also by extension, Konrad Graf's theory that the RT is consistent with Bitcoin's origin is also tenuous, if not wrong, altho not quite as aggregious in its conclusions as Tucker and Andreas.  as far as i'm concerned, Mises is a great economist who was right on just about all things except for the fact that his RT did not, and could not, have been expected to have predicted something like Bitcoin which depends on the Internet and a scale of global communication never before seen in human history.

my final conclusion is the same one i've had since i started with Bitcoin back in 2011, and that is that Bitcoin the currency is inextricably linked to Bitcoin the blockchain and Bitcoin the payment network. 

Yes, people need to accept the duality of bitcoin's value origination. I don't think it's fair to say that either one originates the value; they both have value because of the other, and are really the same thing: a distributed ledger, which gets us back to money as memory, and bitcoin as an ideal societal memory facilitator. It's perhaps easier to try and think of things separately, because humans like to think linearly, but the reality is that the currency/network should be viewed is a single atomic unit, or two units that can't be separately discussed (which is equivalent and therefore a mostly useless definition).

[Trader Steve]

must listen podcast of Robert Murphy by Tom Woods on Bitcoin and the Regression Theorum.  it's a little past halfway in the podcast:

http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp

Murphy's Conclusions:

1.  Bitcoin is unique in that it was developed from the start to be a form of money and did not evolve as a commodity.
2.  Bitcoin leapfrogged the barter phase whereby it would have established it's own relative value (intrinsic value) as a commodity in the market place against other items prior to becoming a medium of exchange.
3.  the Regression Theorum is too restrictive as it could not have predicted something as innovative as Bitcoin.

i extend his conclusions to say the Jeffrey Tucker's theory that Bitcoin only has value primarily b/c of it's payment network to be wrong.  Woods alludes to Tucker's theory in the interview but clearly disagrees with it.  Woods makes the correct argument that the reason ppl value the payment network is b/c the Bitcoin currency has value to begin with.  IOW, the payment network would be worthless if Bitcoin the currency was worthless.  this is where Andreas is also wrong when he says Bitcoin the currency is merely the 1st app existing on what is the real value, the blockchain and that they can be separated.  same argument as Tucker's, same wrong conclusion.

also by extension, Konrad Graf's theory that the RT is consistent with Bitcoin's origin is also tenuous, if not wrong, altho not quite as aggregious in its conclusions as Tucker and Andreas.  as far as i'm concerned, Mises is a great economist who was right on just about all things except for the fact that his RT did not, and could not, have been expected to have predicted something like Bitcoin which depends on the Internet and a scale of global communication never before seen in human history.

my final conclusion is the same one i've had since i started with Bitcoin back in 2011, and that is that Bitcoin the currency is inextricably linked to Bitcoin the blockchain and Bitcoin the payment network. 

Sounds like something I read a while back:

Bitcoin: A New Commodity Created To Serve Market Demand
http://economicsandliberty.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/bitcoin-a-new-commodity-created-to-serve-market-demand/

and

Bitcoin and Why Mises’ Regression Theorem is Wrong
http://economicsandliberty.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/mises-regression-theorem-is-wrong/

[cypherdoc]

trying to make Bitcoin consistent with the RT is like trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.

it'll go in eventually if you hammer it hard enough.

[oda.krell]

must listen podcast of Robert Murphy by Tom Woods on Bitcoin and the Regression Theorum.  it's a little past halfway in the podcast:

http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp

Murphy's Conclusions:

1.  Bitcoin is unique in that it was developed from the start to be a form of money and did not evolve as a commodity.
2.  Bitcoin leapfrogged the barter phase whereby it would have established it's own relative value (intrinsic value) as a commodity in the market place against other items prior to becoming a medium of exchange.
3.  the Regression Theorum is too restrictive as it could not have predicted something as innovative as Bitcoin.

i extend his conclusions to say the Jeffrey Tucker's theory that Bitcoin only has value primarily b/c of it's payment network to be wrong.  Woods alludes to Tucker's theory in the interview but clearly disagrees with it.  Woods makes the correct argument that the reason ppl value the payment network is b/c the Bitcoin currency has value to begin with.  IOW, the payment network would be worthless if Bitcoin the currency was worthless.  this is where Andreas is also wrong when he says Bitcoin the currency is merely the 1st app existing on what is the real value, the blockchain and that they can be separated.  same argument as Tucker's, same wrong conclusion.

also by extension, Konrad Graf's theory that the RT is consistent with Bitcoin's origin is also tenuous, if not wrong, altho not quite as aggregious in its conclusions as Tucker and Andreas.  as far as i'm concerned, Mises is a great economist who was right on just about all things except for the fact that his RT did not, and could not, have been expected to have predicted something like Bitcoin which depends on the Internet and a scale of global communication never before seen in human history.

my final conclusion is the same one i've had since i started with Bitcoin back in 2011, and that is that Bitcoin the currency is inextricably linked to Bitcoin the blockchain and Bitcoin the payment network. 

Yes, people need to accept the duality of bitcoin's value origination. I don't think it's fair to say that either one originates the value; they both have value because of the other, and are really the same thing: a distributed ledger, which gets us back to money as memory, and bitcoin as an ideal societal memory facilitator. It's perhaps easier to try and think of things separately, because humans like to think linearly, but the reality is that the currency/network should be viewed is a single atomic unit, or two units that can't be separately discussed (which is equivalent and therefore a mostly useless definition).

Playing devil's advocate, for a moment (2nd time today, I just notice)

Not challenging the 'minimum valuation required to perform as medium of exchange' argument. But why can't the ledger be separated from the currency  function? For a number of imaginable functions in the future, a minimal share of the supply would be enough to perform the ledger function (e.g. contracts).

In order not to gloss over this: there's still the valuation through required security. If contracts on blockchain have a certain total value, the network needs to be at least protected to make an attack economically unfeasible. Since miners are economically motivated as well, this will provide a security-based minimum valuation of Bitcoin in the process.

Still, the two values need not be the same, so the question remains: why can't the 'ledger' function not be separated from the 'currency/money' function?

[cypherdoc]

$DXY still going up tonite.  sidhuajag, i still don't see how stocks keep rising in the face of this, despite your reasoning:

I think they will wait for usdx retrace... Higher lows for both... Someone ban this lambchop guy seriously offtopic

what's interesting is i have intermediate-term sell signals this past week on the S&P, NDX, Wilshire 5000, the $DJT and even the Dow Jones World Index.

Intermediate-term sell signals were also triggered on the French CAC and the German DAX.

the $DJI is the only holdout.

extrapolating forward to the end of week, it looks like we're going to get a weekly (intermediate term) sell signal on the Dow.  that's a significant development as it has been the only holdout from the above indices.  given where we are in the cycles, there is a chance this could be a long term top in the stock mkt.  mind you as i've said before, i don't have the structural evidence yet that this is the case.  former subs will know what i'm talking about.  but i am on high alert.

like i also said, this would be good for Bitcoin, as it would cause a RunToSafety and could also highlight the benefits of non-correlated assets from the general financial world of which there is only one, imo.

[impulse]

Playing devil's advocate, for a moment (2nd time today, I just notice)

Not challenging the 'minimum valuation required to perform as medium of exchange' argument. But why can't the ledger be separated from the currency  function? For a number of imaginable functions in the future, a minimal share of the supply would be enough to perform the ledger function (e.g. contracts).

In order not to gloss over this: there's still the valuation through required security. If contracts on blockchain have a certain total value, the network needs to be at least protected to make an attack economically unfeasible. Since miners are economically motivated as well, this will provide a security-based minimum valuation of Bitcoin in the process.

Still, the two values need not be the same, so the question remains: why can't the 'ledger' function not be separated from the 'currency/money' function?

You could separate the currency from the ledger, but to what end? Seems to me like that would be making the system and incentives needlessly complicated and would still require you to purchase tokens in order to pay your way into the ledger. In some ways, that is exactly what Ethereum has done. Either way the tokens are still required to make the ledger function, so why make them separate? Perhaps someone has an idea as to why this would be desirable?