Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Mirsad]

i know exactly what their stated objective was.  and it was a stupid policy to begin with called "market manipulation".  devaluing the CHF at the expense of the ppl's purchasing power only helps the corporations and gvt.  and don't give me any bullshit about "trickle down" effects.  this is and will always be the dichotomous battle btwn big and little and Bitcoin is shifting the power to choose back to the ppl. 

you'd better look the hell out and buy some Bitcoin before you get left behind.

No offense, I still bag hold some BTC from the early days. But sold most of them after the dead cat bounce of the 2013 bubble.
The power back to the PPL? Are you retarded? A few suckers hold most of the BTC in circulation. BTC are even worse distributed than fiat.

[1714211697]

1714211697

[1714211697]

1714211697

[1714211697]

1714211697

[1714211697]

1714211697

[cypherdoc]

"dead cat" bounce; retracing already:

[cypherdoc]

i know exactly what their stated objective was.  and it was a stupid policy to begin with called "market manipulation".  devaluing the CHF at the expense of the ppl's purchasing power only helps the corporations and gvt.  and don't give me any bullshit about "trickle down" effects.  this is and will always be the dichotomous battle btwn big and little and Bitcoin is shifting the power to choose back to the ppl. 

you'd better look the hell out and buy some Bitcoin before you get left behind.

No offense, I still bag hold some BTC from the early days. But sold most of them after the dead cat bounce of the 2013 bubble.
The power back to the PPL? Are you retarded? A few suckers hold most of the BTC in circulation. BTC are even worse distributed than fiat.

you just refuted your own point.  you "sold" most of them, aka, distributed them to more ppl.  that's what these huge retraces in price serve to do; redistribute.  750,000 coins traded hands in this last push down.  that's GOOD.  new, fresh, additional strong hands enter the mkt and wait for their profit to be realized in the next push up and they sell.  cycle repeats.  this is how bull mkts work; one continuous rollercoaster ride that bucks most of the "bulls" off to redistribute. 

[Mirsad]

Yeah, also called a ponzi 
We need lots of new retards to buy in to push the price above 1000$.
And most speculators will sell after 200% price increase (otherwise they are plain stupid).

You just need to buy low and sell with a profit. Selling is the most important thing. Without selling you are just another BTC bagholder.

[cypherdoc]

Without selling you are just another BTC bagholder.

unless i'm right.

[cypherdoc]

such a small, little box Draghi suddenly finds himself in.  you're dead if you do, you're dead if you don't:

[Wekkel]

It is going to be epic.

[sidhujag]

draghi doesnt really care about eurchf but more eurusd.. snb cares about eurchf

[Adrian-x]

this is the disruption of currency markets that all we Bitcoiners have been waiting for:

I'd be quite happy with another year of low BTC prices, actually.

I'm quite convinced we're in for a long slow grind at this level, until possibility we see mining turned on its head.

Serious question.

So what makes you so confident in Bitcoin. There are new risks, that could change what I have believed to be the inevitable success of Bitcoin over the last 4 years. That is mainly SideChains could destroy Bitcoin as we know it, and then there is a deluge of coins that could hit the market if a particular ETF is outright rejected.

The serious question being how can you know how the Bitcoin protocol doesn't fall victim to political manipulation?

[cypherdoc]

It is going to be epic.

it is.  and is why i have so much hope for Bitcoin, as well as being so protective about its money function.

thing is, central bankers will never fully agree, let alone gvts.  Yellen must've fallen out of her bed screaming her pretty (?) little head off when she heard what the SNB did.  when it comes down to it, everyone will do what's best for themselves, in this case countries.

which is why Bitcoin is destined to survive and prosper b/c it is the only protection we have against these corrupt forces.

[cypherdoc]

draghi doesnt really care about eurchf but more eurusd.. snb cares about eurchf

same box.  also small:

[sidhujag]

Wow alpari went under? They were a big one mist have gone long as a market maker... i would have thoight they made money in all of this...

The gap is a result of bots and large funds moving instantly probably ppl in the know or banks learning of it seems they all sold at once. Like I said there were ppl who laready knew and sold before even weeks before. This is why central banks must die.. centralization

[justusranvier]

So what makes you so confident in Bitcoin. There are new risks, that could change what I have believed to be the inevitable success of Bitcoin over the last 4 years. That is mainly SideChains could destroy Bitcoin as we know it, and then there is a deluge of coins that could hit the market if a particular ETF is outright rejected.

The serious question being how can you know how the Bitcoin protocol doesn't fall victim to political manipulation?

I am not certain Bitcoin will be successful.

But if it does ultimately succeed, then I want to own as many of them as possible.

Therefore, I like low prices.

[sickpig]

it has already been coded.

secure, cheap, off-chain tx is a solved problem. SC or max block size increases are not needed for increasing max TX throughput.

PM me if you are genuinely interested and not just shooting the breeze on a forum.

Do you have some kind of white paper?
Is it an open source project?

Do you have some kind of white paper?   NO
Is it an open source project?    maybe yes, maybe no.  the pt is, is it secure and does it make sense economically?

Maybe it's me but I thought it was a marcus_of_augustus's project, are you involved? (It seems so from your answers)

for some, it may make sense economically as they will be willing to take the risk.  that's fine.  i can't stop ppl from making risky, if not downright stupid, decisions with their money.

but what i can try to prevent is "institutionalizing" risky protocol changes (spvp) that benefits a specific for-profit company at the expense of a public good, ie, Bitcoin as Sound Money.  yesterday's CHF decision should continue to highlight what i feel is Bitcoins greater purpose; that of replacing gold with a digital equivalent.  if Bitcoin is based on consensus, i sure won't ever be giving my consent to implementing spvp as i think it sends the wrong message to global markets that a self interested group can change the rules in the middle of the game.

I asked those quests precisely to understand and evaluate the project, based on the fact that it's not based on side chains.

And ironically bitcoin *is* based on consensus, this statement is so true that we don't even know if an alternative to bitcoin core is possible without risking forking the chain: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=923409.0

Edit: s/butcoin/bitcoin :-)

[sidhujag]

so banks force tier 2 liuquidity providers to fully cover each trade thus if client margins out broker covers... alpari was worth half a billion.

Fxcm which i hate is publicly traded lost 90% value as clients lost over $250 million...

All in all retail forex market lost about a billion. Thats prob a big chunk of all of it so big win for the blockchain

[tvbcof]

No, I was interested in what you had to say about it.  I do have a couple kimono things around, so I might have been thinking about that, but made a mistake and put them in the text instead of kimoto, which is indeed the proper spelling for this 'kimoto gravity well' item.

I wonder if this would be adjustable enough to allow ordinary users to "dial it down" so that, in accordance with the capacity of their machines, nearly anyone could mine on some similar system such as this kimoto gravity well?  When you are using BCN, the amount of resource it needs is so low you can mine it using a laptop, but there is essentially no variation (nor user direction that would indicate some adjustment needed) for adaptive-ness in such a system.  It just does it as far as I can tell.  But in bitcoin (BTC) it is another matter entirely, and would be very interesting to see if users with limited equipment (say, those who only have laptops or towers) could make certain adjustments and run it as we used to some years back (2010 - 2011).  That would spawn a whole lot of new interest to be sure, although I have about zero idea as to how technically it might work, I certainly found the visualization (graph) here interesting: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/21730/how-does-the-kimoto-gravity-well-regulate-difficulty

Then imagine at the same time all this is happening, which introduces a lot of new diversity to the system, which I suspect is good, in come various approaches to sidechains.  Regardless what anyone thinks of them, in they come, and one can imagine that there will be a system in which there will eventually be zerocash, or something like it, with its own consensus system being managed potentially on a sidechain independently from bitcoin, but still being able to be exchanged for bitcoin if someone were to sit at a table and say, "hey, let's exchange this zerocash token for some bitcoin" or something to that effect.  Zerocash would have its own way of ensuring no double spends.  Not to say sidechains are necessary for this to work, just turning over ideas in my brain randomly, and considering some questions to e-mail the zerocash developers, who have not (yet) released the zerocash code.  

I like your thought patterns here.

It occurs to me that the amount of money individuals spend buying computer and network resources is huge (in total), the idle potential is huge, and the 'distribution' is huge.  For a LOT of reasons tapping into this support base as much as possible seems like a good idea.  To my dismay it seems that Bitcoin is pressured in the opposite directions (which is part of the reason I'm so down on the Bitcoin Foundation.)

One idea that I re-remembered is to have multiple proof-of-work algorithms simultaneously.  One block may be solved by sha256, the next by scrypt, the next by some variation of scrypt, etc.  If there is a dearth of blocks solved by one type of algo, a the reward for that type increases.  The goal, of course, would be retard the propensity for specialized ASIC farms to develop, though it doesn't necessarily mean that mega-farms won't or that mining would not switch over to more general corporate cloud infrastructure.

When I first read the whitepaper I came away with the misunderstanding that simply playing a role in the transmission of transactions was rewarded (being a full node who doesn't necessarily mine.)  Had I not, I probably would have been much less interested in the solution...so I'm glad I misunderstood!  Anyway, I consider it critical to the long term success.  Here is where I see a great value in rewarding diversity.  So, say, you are operating in Iran, or are on a radio link, relaying transactions nets a much bigger reward than if you are one of 100,000 people running a node in Amazon's AWS.

Since I am mostly interested in 'reserve currency' duty, the exact block frequency doesn't matter so much.  High and variable latency systems are vastly more difficult to attack partly because the systems they support are built anticipating this.  Bitcoin excels here already.

I'd like to see rewards modulated with a varying coinbase as a factor.  So, to play on a previous example, if you are a mining node behind a radio link, you might get a much bigger coinbase reward than a block mined in mega-mining datacenter.  For the benefit of the economy the inflation rate needs to be roughly anticipatable, but it does not need to be precise.  This could be achieved through an interplay between coinbase rewards and block frequency.

A massive problem to be solved is that if one has a supercomputer it is relatively easy to pretend you have a laptop.  The reverse is not true.  It is also fairly straightforward to emulate a variety of network connection types or to pretend to be located in a jurisdiction you are not.  To solve that problem (partially) I would imagine a web of interconnected nodes which cross-check and verify one another.  A system must anticipate that everyone will always cheat if they can.

Getting back to the Kimoto thing, the glancing I've done at it seems to indicate that it is nothing more than a sort of a dampening and weighting algorithm.  And a fairly simple one (simple is good!)  Such constructs would be abundantly necessary in the solution to some of the problems I mention above, and it is not surprising that it popped out as a solution to the problem you seem to have recognized.  Again though, you gotta consider the problem I mention in the paragraph above.

My 'paracoin' idea was almost exclusively for the purposes of having some way to safely play around with some of these ideas.  Sidechains are a vastly better way to solve the same problem.  I implemented (or more accurately, hypothesized) the 'two way peg' in a much more clumsy way.  (edit:  And in a way which does nothing to help and/or support Bitcoin where the exact opposite is true of sidechains.)

 edit: minor/syntax

[rocks]

i should've put up the 1 min chart:

...

That's a fantastic chart.

What made SNB take back their decision on continuing 1.20 Cap on EUR/CHF?

The non-tin foil hat reason is the CHF/USD pair was no longer a concern. The problem for the SNB was when the EUR was strong plus the CNF being strong on top of that raised the CHF/USD pair to a level that made the Swiss noncompetitive. Now that the EUR has fallen against the Dollar, there was no need to artificially hold down the CHF.

The tin foil hat reason is central banks like crushing market participants from time to time, it demonstrates their power and keeps everyone in check. Case in point Bear Sterns. In 2008 all the top 5 investment banks required implicit FED backing. The FED selected BS to make an example and told the market that they were no longer going to backstop BS, within minutes the run on the bank caused a default. This could have happened to any of the other IBs, GS was not selected because they have a standing revolving door with the FED. The FED wiped out BS to demonstrate their power. Why do you think everyone now just follows the FED blindly.

[tvbcof]

...
The tin foil hat reason is central banks like crushing market participants from time to time, it demonstrates their power and keeps everyone in check. Case in point Bear Sterns. In 2008 all the top 5 investment banks required implicit FED backing. The FED selected BS to make an example and told the market that they were no longer going to backstop BS, within minutes the run on the bank caused a default. This could have happened to any of the other IBs, GS was not selected because they have a standing revolving door with the FED. The FED wiped out BS to demonstrate their power. Why do you think everyone now just follows the FED blindly.

I heard that Bear Sterns was selected because they didn't cough up some bucks years earlier during the LTCM derivatives implosion where the others did.  Payback is a bitch.

[Adrian-x]

So what makes you so confident in Bitcoin. There are new risks, that could change what I have believed to be the inevitable success of Bitcoin over the last 4 years. That is mainly SideChains could destroy Bitcoin as we know it, and then there is a deluge of coins that could hit the market if a particular ETF is outright rejected.

The serious question being how can you know how the Bitcoin protocol doesn't fall victim to political manipulation?

I am not certain Bitcoin will be successful.

But if it does ultimately succeed, then I want to own as many of them as possible.

Therefore, I like low prices.

ok

I consider my self an outsider to Bitcoin, and what I see happening isn't all that pity. I hope these cheep coins attract the new investors and coins are distributing, my feeling is most of them are not investing in Bitcoins (as in BTC) but rather technologies to change or manipulate it, in the case of BlockStream, it's more about politics and public relations, even the core developers there are looking to earn a salary without exposure to risk, I doubt they are buying these lows, and suspect they're counting on salaries paid by those who will profits by changing the protocol. Rather than risking it all -burning the ships so to speak and going all in on Bitcoin and building on the existing foundation, they are actively finding ways to exploits it, and calling it a contribution. 

[rocks]

...
The tin foil hat reason is central banks like crushing market participants from time to time, it demonstrates their power and keeps everyone in check. Case in point Bear Sterns. In 2008 all the top 5 investment banks required implicit FED backing. The FED selected BS to make an example and told the market that they were no longer going to backstop BS, within minutes the run on the bank caused a default. This could have happened to any of the other IBs, GS was not selected because they have a standing revolving door with the FED. The FED wiped out BS to demonstrate their power. Why do you think everyone now just follows the FED blindly.

I heard that Bear Sterns was selected because they didn't cough up some bucks years earlier during the LTCM derivatives implosion where the others did.  Payback is a bitch.

For a very brief period early in my career I worked in IT for a major bank and met a lot of bankers at that time. The bankers I met at Bear Sterns always seemed to speak as if they were outsiders to the rest of the financial industry, as if they were the scrappy upstarts to the established elite, while those at Goldman always seemed to speak as if they were part of the inside club. It was subtle but noticeable.

Our ruling nobility obviously had to crush them.