Bitcoin Forum
November 19, 2017, 04:30:35 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [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 ... 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 [1207] 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2009354 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 16, 2015, 05:57:42 AM
 #24121

it seems to me that the Nasdaq is not only going to want it but demand it if they want to transact shares off the blockchain.  seems to me that Goldman Sachs is not only going to want it but demand that Circle be able to act as a MSB so they can get a return.  seems to me that the NYSE is not only going to want it but demand that Coinbase be able to act as a MSB so they can get a return.  i also think that guys like Arthur Levitt, Vikram Pandit, Eric Schmidt, Reid Hoffman, Li Ka Shing, Richard Branson, the Winklevii, Andresen, Sheila Bair, Blythe Masters are NOT going to take kindly to their millions of investment capital being vaporized by some politicians.

i also highly doubt that the Chinese Mandarins are going to cooperate with the USG apparatchiks to prop up a sinking USD.  not to mention Iran & Russia.

I don't know what part of "centralization" you thought you were refuting.  Huh You appear to be describing centralization underway.

I don't know why you think the global elite wouldn't profit from destroying the USD as they usher in a political multi-polar world run top-down with a one-world reserve currency. China and Russia are in the power sharing agreement of the elite and the plans to enslave the minions and maximize fascist profit with a Global Technocracy.

I don't have more time to expend on you. Sorry.

1511109035
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511109035

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511109035
Reply with quote  #2

1511109035
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 16, 2015, 06:04:31 AM
 #24122

Your self-proclaimed superior intelligence is going to waste

I don't claim to have superior intelligence over every member of this thread and certainly not in every facet of knowledge (that would be absurd). I know for a fact that both smooth and Peter R have corrected me in the past. I get frustrated that I can't write something critical, succinct, and factual without inflaming someone's ego.

I make some succinct corrections and insights and this appears to set off the egos of those b-listers who are being debated. Note however, the way the discussion between NewLiberty and myself proceeded in this thread. There was no inflamed ego, so you probably missed the factual discussion. Try to review and see how I cordially I debate with those who are interested in useful discussion and not ego wars.


Doesn't make sense that the protocol allows non standard TX's to be accepted in block form by nodes yet at the same time they won't relay or accept them if simply propagated.

The transactions were always valid.

To make them invalid would require a hard fork. We try to avoid hard forks for obvious solutions.

So the compromise was...

As a consequence, non-standard transactions can still be included in a block because they are valid transactions from a block verification standpoint. However to discourage them, most P2P nodes and most miners ignore them.

You added to my knowledge. Normally I don't acknowledge, because it is noisy to do so. Just this once, so that others will understand I don't think I have all the knowledge (would be an absurd claim).

Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
May 16, 2015, 06:06:47 AM
 #24123

I don't have more time to expend on you. Sorry.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 16, 2015, 06:07:49 AM
 #24124

I don't have more time to expend on you. Sorry.



haha. b-listers are so clueless.

No I have work to do.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 16, 2015, 06:11:52 AM
 #24125

The boxing video inputs pushed the topic of Bitcoin out of my entertainment zone.

So why did you watch them? (don't try to pretend you didn't otherwise you wouldn't know their content with confidence)

If you see I am in a silly wrestling match with Cypherdoc then why are you bothering to click youtubes in a post where he and I are not discussing anything factual.

TPTB (no pun intended) would be a little more effective if he understood the value of attention.

Here we have a supposedly serious technical thread started by a b-lister in a Speculation forum and you expect to have noiseless and efficient A-lister geek discussion  Huh

The mistake is who is allowed to post here. I shouldn't be posting here because of who else is allowed to post here. That is if you want to have a very high S/N.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 16, 2015, 06:25:39 AM
 #24126

we know that full nodes have unconf tx sets that correspond by somewhere over 90%; which is why IBLT could work to communicate across the network that a new block has been solved.  the ppl who argue against raising the 1MB cap say that an attacker could create these bloated blocks to torment small miners.  the question is, where would they get the extra tx's to construct this bloat?

I don't know about the arguments of others, but my argument is that at some level of scale the small miners can't keep up with all those transactions. My point was never against raising the blocksize of Bitcoin. My point is that Bitcoin as it is currently designed where every full node must see and verify every transaction, can't scale without being centralized (or moving transactions offchain which is the same thing as centralization if they will be done offchain on the servers of the behemoths if the fundamental blockchain scaling issue has remained unresolved).

I thought that was an obvious implication from my posts. If I write everything that is obviously implied then my posts become verbose walls-of-text. If I don't write what should be deducible, then some allege that I don't make sense or write vaguely. I can't win either way.


On the UTXO topic, the distribution of balances here

http://bitcoinrichlist.com/charts/bitcoin-distribution-by-address?atblock=350000

shows that 96.97% of addresses contain less than 0.001 BTC. Now these are address totals, any analysis of UTXO outputs would show that more than 96.97% of UTXO outputs contain less than 0.001BTC.

I think this shows that the UTXO is already vastly populated by dust nonsense that simply sits around. If UTXO size becomes an issue any intelligent implementation could easily swap these out to a lower tier of storage. Most of this dust will never be spent simply because you'd have to pay more in fees than the output is worth, spending them is literally burning money.

1. You are not addressing the fundamental scaling issue, rather doing some bounded compression.

2. As BTC rises in price, dust may become spendable.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 16, 2015, 06:55:24 AM
 #24127

So any code changes made to the Bitcoin Core client do not require forks which is to be distinguished from  changes to the protocol which defines what is acceptable as a block and requires a fork?

I'd define it as Bitcoin is the blockchain data structure and the set of rules that govern what constitutes a valid block. If you want to change the rules that govern what is a valid block (transactions and block structure) then that is a fork. Anything else is not a fork. The reasoning is simple, these are the rules that govern if a specific chain is valid and thus govern consensus.

Nodes however can operate however they want, as long as they agree on the rules that define a valid block. If some nodes decide on a different set of rules, then they will be forced onto their own chain and lose consensus with the main chain.

Take Gavin's IBLT proposal as an example. This is a major change to bitcoind that changes how nodes communicate blocks to each other. This is not a fork simply because it does not change anything at all about what defines a valid or invalid block. Just the communication of blocks.

If all full nodes don't adopt the change then IBLT doesn't function (or the nodes that don't adopt it, are in a major disadvantage in terms of orphan rate and earnings and thus they fall away), thus it is a hard (i.e. non-optional feature change) fork.

Peter R asked me upthread to explain why I think it is a hard fork. So there is my explanation.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 16, 2015, 08:57:52 AM
 #24128

Compromise solution: up to 500 tps on-chain while keeping the 1MB limit, however, a hard-fork is still needed.

If I understand correctly what you have proposed, then essentially you are allowing miners to create chains with larger blocks (e.g. by having with sufficient hashrate either IBLT coordination or sufficient bandwidth connectivity) but miners should not be penalized (i.e. not censored from the relay network) for not propagating a new block announcement that is greater than 1MB.

Thus afaik this proposal only gets around the objections of core devs if it is really just a rollout plan for IBLT. Otherwise these larger blocks are penalizing (with higher orphan rate and/or late announcement) those smaller miners with lesser connectivity.

There are only two ways forward that don't lead to technical problems with transaction processing or smaller miners:

1. Rollout IBLT. (long-term solution and I assert centralizes Bitcoin which is why I characterized it as "won't work" meaning won't maintain the fundamental tenet[1]).

2. Increase txn fees to curtail rate-of-expansion of the txn rate.  (short-term, kick-the-can)

Are there core devs protesting against IBLT?

P.S. If IBLT can't be rolled out fast enough, then #2 is the only option I see. The hard fork of increasing the blocksize to 20MB is likely not politically possible as a kick-the-can (and perhaps not advisable also).

[1]https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11331322#msg11331322
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11334337#msg11334337
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11331549#msg11331549

Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
May 16, 2015, 09:39:56 AM
 #24129

Compromise solution: up to 500 tps on-chain while keeping the 1MB limit, however, a hard-fork is still needed.


I do not understand how you can add 300,000 transaction * 250 bytes into 1 MB block.   500 tps is 75 MB every 10 minutes. (or will you have 75 * 1 MB blocks every 10 mins ? )
tabnloz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 962


View Profile
May 16, 2015, 10:31:22 AM
 #24130

it seems to me that the Nasdaq is not only going to want it but demand it if they want to transact shares off the blockchain.  seems to me that Goldman Sachs is not only going to want it but demand that Circle be able to act as a MSB so they can get a return.  seems to me that the NYSE is not only going to want it but demand that Coinbase be able to act as a MSB so they can get a return.  i also think that guys like Arthur Levitt, Vikram Pandit, Eric Schmidt, Reid Hoffman, Li Ka Shing, Richard Branson, the Winklevii, Andresen, Sheila Bair, Blythe Masters are NOT going to take kindly to their millions of investment capital being vaporized by some politicians.

i also highly doubt that the Chinese Mandarins are going to cooperate with the USG apparatchiks to prop up a sinking USD.  not to mention Iran & Russia.


I don't know why you think the global elite wouldn't profit from destroying the USD as they usher in a political multi-polar world run top-down with a one-world reserve currency. China and Russia are in the power sharing agreement of the elite and the plans to enslave the minions and maximize fascist profit with a Global Technocracy.

I don't have more time to expend on you. Sorry.

This may be a very simple reading of it, but wouldn't a one world currency run into the same problems the Euro has, just on a larger scale? (ie, smaller less competitive nations are disadvantaged and have very little wiggle room in case of downturn etc)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 16, 2015, 10:43:38 AM
 #24131

NYT has an article claiming Nick is Satoshi.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/business/decoding-the-enigma-of-satoshi-nakamoto-and-the-birth-of-bitcoin.html?_r=0

While I agree the evidence shows him to be in the likely list, there is a pool of other people who worked on similar projects and participated in similar forums, any one of which could be Satoshi as well.

Nick Szabo understood the critical importance of the fundamental tenet of not needing "trusted third parties" (a.k.a. TTP), i.e. the bearer nature of personal property.



I don't think Nick Szabo would have designed Bitcoin because he understood very well that you can't trust hash function to be fair. I don't think he had reasoned out how to avoid the inevitable centralization he was trying to avoid.

One plausible scenario is the DEEP STATE found Nick's work (because they are following closely influential gold bugs, Libertarians, and Bit Gold created a mini uproar even I was sent a link to it before Bitcoin became known) and realized he had identified how to create a system that would give them exactly what they wanted. It is plausible that Nick being the very smart guy he is, knows what has happened and this could be another reason that he has apparently been keeping a very low profile.

Another possibility is Nick clearly understood the profit potential as he mentioned in the Bit Gold essay. So he may have created Bitcoin knowing full well that he was handing a monster against humanity to those with the power to invest $billions in custom hardware. He may have done this thinking it might drive the economic incentives and avenues for spawning a better solution. In this case, the correlation of his May 2011 disappearance to Satoshi's brings to my mind that Satoshi wanted to disappear when he heard about some major press that Bitcoin had just received.

It is very odd that not one photo and no life history can be found of him online. And that he was allegedly present at some Goldman Sachs employee's Lake Tahoe condo where a NYT journalist is.

S(atoshi) N(akamoto)
N(ick) S(zabo)

Whoever created Bitcoin is at least wanting to point to him.

solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
May 16, 2015, 10:48:09 AM
 #24132

Compromise solution: up to 500 tps on-chain while keeping the 1MB limit, however, a hard-fork is still needed.


I do not understand how you can add 300,000 transaction * 250 bytes into 1 MB block.   500 tps is 75 MB every 10 minutes. (or will you have 75 * 1 MB blocks every 10 mins ? )

That's the magic of IBLT. The transactions are overlaying each other (via XOR) and can only be extracted by a receiver who knows ~99% of them already. Useless for many applications, but perfect for Bitcoin.

Gavin's original overview of it:
https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2

Two test implementations:
http://rustyrussell.github.io/pettycoin/2014/11/05/Playing-with-invertible-bloom-lookup-tables-and-bitcoin-transactions.html

500 tps is ballpark number of what might be achievable after decoupling the block size from the message size. It enables this compression technique to show its full power whereas at present it is very constrained.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 16, 2015, 12:37:37 PM
 #24133

Compromise solution: up to 500 tps on-chain while keeping the 1MB limit, however, a hard-fork is still needed.


I do not understand how you can add 300,000 transaction * 250 bytes into 1 MB block.   500 tps is 75 MB every 10 minutes. (or will you have 75 * 1 MB blocks every 10 mins ? )

That's the magic of IBLT...

Thus my assumptions were correct[1]. You are proposing that blockchains with blocks > 1 MB can be created but these will only communicated via IBLT (which compresses what needs to be communicated on new block announcements), thus you are proposing IBLT rollout.

[1] I included the general case where some miners might communicate large block announcements instead of using IBLT (that is why I wrote "not penalized"), but the same conclusions come from that case as for IBLT.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 16, 2015, 12:41:54 PM
 #24134

it seems to me that the Nasdaq is not only going to want it but demand it if they want to transact shares off the blockchain.  seems to me that Goldman Sachs is not only going to want it but demand that Circle be able to act as a MSB so they can get a return.  seems to me that the NYSE is not only going to want it but demand that Coinbase be able to act as a MSB so they can get a return.  i also think that guys like Arthur Levitt, Vikram Pandit, Eric Schmidt, Reid Hoffman, Li Ka Shing, Richard Branson, the Winklevii, Andresen, Sheila Bair, Blythe Masters are NOT going to take kindly to their millions of investment capital being vaporized by some politicians.

i also highly doubt that the Chinese Mandarins are going to cooperate with the USG apparatchiks to prop up a sinking USD.  not to mention Iran & Russia.


I don't know why you think the global elite wouldn't profit from destroying the USD as they usher in a political multi-polar world run top-down with a one-world reserve currency. China and Russia are in the power sharing agreement of the elite and the plans to enslave the minions and maximize fascist profit with a Global Technocracy.

I don't have more time to expend on you. Sorry.

This may be a very simple reading of it, but wouldn't a one world currency run into the same problems the Euro has, just on a larger scale? (ie, smaller less competitive nations are disadvantaged and have very little wiggle room in case of downturn etc)

Indeed by design, as was the Euro designed to fail. Transferring all power to the most powerful central banks, which in NWO will be the world bank. The elite (I am not referring to the military generals, etc) in China, Russia, USA, etc are in this power sharing agreement to enslave the world. These faux conflicts are scripted false flags to make us think these nations are opposing each other.

That is why they need a really big crisis to bring all the (non-elite such as military generals, etc in the) nations to their knees and willing to accept a world bank with political representation in order to counter the problem of the USD hegemony which is what the nations will blame when the dollar goes skyhigh in 2017. The entire (mostly developing) world is $trillions short the dollar right now, because the QE ended up in dollar loans abroad. There will be a short squeeze into the dollar in 2016 - 2018, which will send the rest of the world collapsing. Then the USA will follow over the cliff in 2018. This is going to be the worst financial crisis in 100s of years.

After the USSR collapsed the economy was handed to oligarchs on purpose. The Communist revolutions in Russia and China were created and funded by the banksters. Review Anthony Sutton's research for starters.

thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
May 16, 2015, 12:47:25 PM
 #24135

@solex it seems to me that at best the IBLT idea would halve the bandwidth.   And remove a nasty burst during block propagation.  Is my analysis correct?  If so its good but not really comparable to a 1000x bitcoin adoption.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 16, 2015, 12:50:07 PM
 #24136

And remove a nasty burst during block propagation.

I already explained that. Afaics, he isn't proposing to compress the block chain. He is proposing to eliminate that nasty burst by rolling out IBLT.

Afaics, he is proposing that miners that don't want to use IBLT can stay within the limit of 1MB block announcements. And the IBLT announcement will be less than 1MB for those using IBLT. But those who don't use IBLT will be at a great disadvantage in terms of orphan rate and ROI, thus in effect he is proposing IBLT rollout.

IBLT can scale up to any amount of txns that all full nodes can coordinate via the P2P relay. I argue that at some level this becomes centralizing. I don't know where his 500 tps comes from. Doesn't seem to correlate to a 20 MB x 10 min. block.

He also apparently proposed that blockchain block size (differentiated from block announcement block size) would not longer be hard limited.

Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
May 16, 2015, 03:40:14 PM
 #24137

Compromise solution: up to 500 tps on-chain while keeping the 1MB limit, however, a hard-fork is still needed.


I do not understand how you can add 300,000 transaction * 250 bytes into 1 MB block.   500 tps is 75 MB every 10 minutes. (or will you have 75 * 1 MB blocks every 10 mins ? )

That's the magic of IBLT. The transactions are overlaying each other (via XOR) and can only be extracted by a receiver who knows ~99% of them already. Useless for many applications, but perfect for Bitcoin.

Gavin's original overview of it:
https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2

Two test implementations:
http://rustyrussell.github.io/pettycoin/2014/11/05/Playing-with-invertible-bloom-lookup-tables-and-bitcoin-transactions.html

500 tps is ballpark number of what might be achievable after decoupling the block size from the message size. It enables this compression technique to show its full power whereas at present it is very constrained.

So if I understand it right then If every miner collected 75 MB of transactions then you can compress block into 1 MB.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
May 16, 2015, 04:30:10 PM
 #24138

...
IBLT can scale up to any amount of txns that all full nodes can coordinate via the P2P relay. I argue that at some level this becomes centralizing. ...

Someone has proposed a 'P2P relay'?  LOL!  I argue that at some level all levels this is label is an absurdity.


Wekkel
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 16, 2015, 09:47:37 PM
 #24139

Since short term direction of the markets cannot be known, I am mostly insterested in long term movements. With enough attention and - moreover - a lot of patience and No Fear when the time comes, big gains are possible. From that perspective, Armstrong got me hooked with his It's Just Time.

I am fond of the long term play between paper (stocks, bonds) and physical (gold). On a long enough time frame, some excellent trends can be seen in the Dow/Gold ratio and Tobin Q. Tobin Q is the ratio between a physical asset's market value and its replacement value. Both indicators are quite apt in catching extremes in the markets (paper when confidence is high and physical if confidence is low).



It is clear to see that Gold made a good run as from the paper highs of 40+ (Dow/Gold ratio). According to the past, there is some more juice to squeeze from that trade. With a temporary bounce of this ratio (currently 15), I would think that history shows that we should see another dip of this ratio between 1-2 before the next paper confidence game starts. The problem is: this is no theory that gives clear timing. It's just a guess based on long term movements and its resolution could take 10-20 years. On the other hand, you only need to act twice in your lifetime to do it right (besides having some capital from the start to invest).

Because of this underlying concept of long term waves, Armstrong's theories spike my curiosity. Besides his 2015.75 time frame, Armstrong has written some concrete scenario's recently that shed some light in what he is thinking about for the near future (1-3 years). It's a bit counter intuitive to me and I am interested to hear what you think of this. See 2 quotes below from two of his recent blog postings.

Quote
We still see May – July – September as key targets for turning points. Whatever we end up with in September should produce the opposite trend immediately thereafter. As we now head into the last week of May/first week of June, we should start to see the choppy trends begin.
It is more likely than not that we should see a retest of support that will scare people and cause them to believe the stock market will crash. The high in the Dow still remains March 2nd at 18,335 level. Support begins at the 17,153 level and a daily closing beneath that level will signal the correction is then possible. The key support lies back at 16,540 level. A drop back to that area in the weeks and months ahead should convince everyone to buy more government paper and complete the final bubble top in government debt.

Quote
Smart capital sees the crisis. Look for the development here going into the last week of May. We should get a bounce thereafter, but government debt will decline after 2015.75 on a worldwide scale.
The share markets hopefully create the false move and that should send more capital rushing into government paper. There is not enough short-term paper around so we should then see capital forced to start moving up the maturity duration just to park money as share markets correct.

Armstrong sees a downturn in bond markets. Tipping point to watch is 2015.75, marked as possible reversal date. From the above, I understand that he takes a scenario into account of a correction in stocks the last few months before this reversal date, leading to the last push into government bonds. After that, in his scenario bonds will tank but - counterintuitive - I understand he thinks stocks will be a good place to park money. He is not fond of gold and only sees it as a long term investement (if somebody wants to take that trade) or suitable for panics. This is where I cannot fit the long term theory I started this post with (see background here and here). How can stocks do well if the bond market is in upheavel? It does not fit the picture of paper burning and a rush to physical. In our current interconnected financial markets, a crash in bond markets will render many parties insolvent and will have devastating effects on markets overall. I cannot see stocks surviving this ordeal without heavy damage, depending as it is on finance and leverage at current levels (not even speaking about business profits).

I do see a good moment going full into stocks after this bond market crash has played out, provided that we will still have 'free markets' (quotes intended, you know why...). I believe Armstrong describes this as the start of the private wave instead of the public wave that is moving towards or in the end phase. From my perspective, it should simply be a bottoming of long term indicators telling me that fear and the rush to physical is at its extreme, demanding a move to paper against all odds (at that time). I do known that negative interest rates and the obvious move to non-cash societies are not helping Joe Sixpac's level of trust.

Whether Bitcoin (or other coins like Monero) play any role in this scenario is something I cannot get a feeling for. It seems too much of a gimmick to benefit from (or be negatively affected by) the gyrations of the paper/physical markets, having a mind of its own. I do see some vague similarities in Gold seeming to bottom just like Bitcoin. I do hope that crypto chooses the side of physical, as its turn is around the corner after decades of paper deluge.

Bring it on!  Cool Grin

         ▄███████████████▄
       ▄██▀             ▀██▄
    ▄▄██▀                 ▀██▄▄
█████▀▀       ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄    ▀▀█████
██          ▄▀ ▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▄▀█▄▄      ██
▐█▌       ▄▀ ▄▀ ▄▄▄▀▀▀▄▀▀▀███   ▐█▌
 ██      ▄▀▄▀▄▀▀▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀█ ▄█▀   ██
 ▐█▌    █▄▀▄▀▄█▀▀▀ ▀█▀ ▄▀▄▀█   ▐█▌
  ██    █▄▀▄▀▄▄█▀ ▄▀ ▄▀▄▀▄▀█   ██
  ▐█▌ ▀▄█████▀▄▄▀▀▄▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀█  ▐█▌
   ██▌▀████▀██▄▄▀▀▄▄▀▄▀▄▀▄█▀ ▐██
    ██▌▀█▀▀█▄▀▀▄▀▀▄▄▀▄█▄▄█▀ ▐██
     ██▌ ▀  ▀███▄▄▄█████▀  ▐██
      ██▄      ▀▀▀▀▀      ▄██
       ▀██▄             ▄██▀
         ▀██▄         ▄██▀
           ▀██▄     ▄██▀
             ▀███▄███▀
               ▀███▀
.DeepOnion.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★  .❱❱❱ JOIN AIRDROP NOW!.
TOR INTEGRATED & SECURED
★  Your Anonymity Guaranteed
★  Your Assets Secured by TOR
★  Guard Your Privacy!
|Bitcointalk
Reddit
Telegram
|                        ▄▄▀▄▄▀▄▄▀▄▀▀
                    ▄▄██▀█▀▄▀▀▀
                  ▄██▄█▄██▀
                ▄██████▀
              ▄██████▀
  ▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██████▀
██████▀▀▀▀▀██████▀
 ▀█████  ▄███████
  ████████████▀██
  ██▀███████▀  ██
  ██ ▀████▀    ██
  ██   ▀▀      ██
  ▀█████████████▀
STT
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1540



View Profile WWW
May 16, 2015, 11:52:23 PM
 #24140

Quote
Is gold likely to rocket? And bitcoin? Also the dollar has been sagging quite a bit lately. That should help gold but what about BTC?

The confusing thing is that gold does not change, its inert and its really the same value every day.  The dollar is changing and thats why gold appears to rise in price, inevitably the price of gold goes up.  Its the dollars which change, the gold has the same worth.  I think thats the baseline, of course people speculate but that wont determine gold itself

Apart from that there is the idea that gold when used more widely will rise in value not just price.   Im not seeing great use of gold though, we can only point at central banks which as a whole are buying gold not selling as was true for decades.    The biggest buyer is China which does not declare their reserves properly, so we really have no idea if gold is being more valued by world population or not.  
BTC reacts to dollar but its price is mostly about usage by its holders so I dont think its comparable to gold really, it changes every day.  On two extremes its obvious if nobody uses it then we are talking very low value but if I can exchange it with everyone, its value becomes very high.  People argue this is same as gold but gold can be used outside of money and even if not used a hundred years remains the same where btc would not, its very volatile and velocity driven, there is a great fear of zero worth there where as people will swap food for gold as it is superior always in its durability



                                         ▄
                 ▄▄████████▄▄         ▄▄██
 ▄▄           ▄██▀▀        ▀▀██▄    ▄███▀
 ▀███▄▄     ▄█▀                ▀█▄▄█████▀
  ▀██████▄▄█▀                ▄▄███████▀
   ▐█████████▄           ▄▄███████████
     ▀█████████▄▄      ▄█████████████
       ▀██████████    ███████████████
        ▐▀█████████  █████████████▀ ▐▌
        ▐▌ ▀▀██████ ▐███████████▀   ▐▌
        ▐▌      ▀██ ▐█████████▀     ▐▌
         █        ▀  ██████         █
         ▐█          ▐█████▄       █▌
          ▀█▄         ▀██████▄   ▄█▀
            ▀█▄         ▀█████▌▄█▀
              ▀██▄▄       ▀▄▄██▀
                ▀▀████████▀▀
T
....ANGEL TOKEN....


                                         ▄
                 ▄▄████████▄▄         ▄▄██
 ▄▄           ▄██▀▀        ▀▀██▄    ▄█▀█▀ 
 ▀█▀█▄▄     ▄█▀                ▀█▄▄█  ▄█▀ 
  ▀█  ▀▀█▄▄█▀                ▄▄██░   █▀   
   ▐▄▄  ░░░▀█▄           ▄▄█▀▀░░░   ▄█    
     ▀█▄ ░░░▒▒█▄▄      ▄██▒▒▒▒▒░    █     
       ▀▄▄ ░░▒▒▒▓█    ██▒▒▒▒▒▒░   ▄▄█     
        ▐▀█▄░░▒▒▓██  █▓▒▒▒▒▒▒░  ▄█▀ ▐▌    
        ▐▌ ▀▀█▒▓███░▐█▓▒▒▒▒░░ ▄█▀   ▐▌    
        ▐▌      ▀██ ▐█▓▓▒▒▄▄▄█▀     ▐▌    
         █        ▀  █▓█▀▀█         █     
         ▐█          ▐▄▓░ █▄       █▌     
          ▀█▄         ▀█▒░ ▀█▄   ▄█▀      
            ▀█▄         ▀█▄▄▄█▌▄█▀        
              ▀██▄▄       ▀▄▄██▀          
                 ▀▀████████▀▀             

Pages: « 1 ... 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 [1207] 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 ... 1558 »
  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!