Bitcoin Forum
November 19, 2017, 01:05:56 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 ... 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 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2009257 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:16:32 PM
 #24361

so arguably we shouldn't expect to see a serious spinoff until the eleventh hour.

When it will be too late to do anything. The Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc will already own Bitcoin by then and you will not have the means to fork away. The smartmoney will have been long gone into the anonymous altcoin (assuming one can present the necessary oomph of network effects soon enough). And you may find you've missed most of the wealth effect by that juncture. Who would want to trade back to BTC from an anonymous coin when the wealth effect is headed in the other direction and they would have to comply with KYC by that juncture.

Investing is about foresight. Place your bets now. Religious desire for safety and continuity is not the function of an astute speculator.

1511096756
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511096756

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511096756
Reply with quote  #2

1511096756
Report to moderator
1511096756
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511096756

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511096756
Reply with quote  #2

1511096756
Report to moderator
1511096756
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511096756

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511096756
Reply with quote  #2

1511096756
Report to moderator
"I'm sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume." -- Satoshi
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511096756
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511096756

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511096756
Reply with quote  #2

1511096756
Report to moderator
1511096756
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511096756

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511096756
Reply with quote  #2

1511096756
Report to moderator
1511096756
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511096756

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511096756
Reply with quote  #2

1511096756
Report to moderator
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:20:38 PM
 #24362

I think the best argument for one ledger is network effects. Network effects for money are very very strong. In order to enable a switch to a new money, there has to be a significant improvement over the existing money. Network effects are so strong that people continue to use fiat even though it has been inferior for decades. To me this is the main reason why Monero and other alts will not win, even if they offer some advantages (which I think is debatable), the advantages are not enough to overcome the network effects that are already behind bitcoin (which itself may not be able to beat the network effects of the dollar).

I agree. This is another factor that prevents altcoins from reaching escape velocity instead of profit taking arbitrage back to BTC.

This is why I say new markets are critical if you want your altcoin to reach critical mass.

rpietila
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:22:20 PM
 #24363

Quote
Everyone who exits the old chain, obtains some value in the new chain, and the wealth effect as calculated from the actual net new capital flows, is 4x-10x.

I'm not sure how you're using the term "wealth effect" here.

Positive wealth effect = increase in marketcap : net virgin demand

In CKG case, there was $50k new money wanting in, which ended up raising the marketcap to $500k, making the wealth effect coefficient of 10x.

Quote
I'm actually not talking about spinoffs here. I just used the word "ledger" because that's one of my preferred terms for "coin" or "altcoin." I meant that the 90% will sell their allocations in the altcoin and buy more BTC, for the reasons mentioned above, and that I think this negates the small float effect.

Yes, you are talking about spinoffs, because in an exit situation to a new ledger, the 90% does not have any allocations in the new ledger that they could sell unless they buy them first, negating your point instead.

Quote
we can say the effect should be mitigated/eliminated by arbitrageurs - as long as fairly basic market infrastructure is there.

I agree that if the old chain survives the initial crash without it causing a descent to abyss (BTC has many examples of survival!), then in the long term the valuations of the chains adjust to represent market perceptions. Yet as the science of determining a correct valuation for a cryptocoin is completely unestablished even in the best minds, not only in the markets, it may well be that in a "successful" 10% exit, the end state is much different than 90/10. I don't claim any reasonable powers to forecast, even after more research on the subject than most.

There is however the case that the old chain is destroyed by the initial exodus of capital and market crash, and the general loss of confidence that results. Just see what has happened to shitcoins.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:23:48 PM
 #24364

The 6-7 properties of money were written thousands of years ago, people. Technology, including "anti-money" technology, has come on a little since then. Privacy is a property of money since at least some point in the 20th century.

Furthermore, cryptocurrency brings a whole new set of (so far) necessary properties. There's no need to compartmentalise "classical money" properties from those which have been added during it's subsequent evolution.

I think it is important to determine what you "have" to have in a money instrument vs. what is "nice" to have vs. what "derives" from other properties. When arguments on which altcoin might be better start, the differences in opinion seem to often come down to this. I don't think the properties of ideal money have changed just because we are using a digital medium now. I also think with the right "have to have" properties, that you can layer on top of that the "nice to have" aspects. Anyway the market will decide.


So, new innovations in anti-money tools don't change the fundamental characteristics of money itself?


My personal view is I do not believe so.

The reason is I have not seen any anti-money tools that are not defeated by the six main properties working together.

Gold was attacked by anti-money tools (bank notes) because it was not very portable, and as a result people stopped using it directly and governments were able to circumvent gold over time. Bitcoin is very portable and perfectly fungible, this makes anti-money tools harder to deploy. For anything I can imagine they will throw at Bitcoin, it seems trivial to layer additional usage mechanisms on top of the protocol as needed. If bitcoin wasn't portable, fungible, divisible, etc this wouldn't be the case.

@ bolded: I would argue that intangibility and being cryptographically driven are far more important properties for cryptocurrencies to counter anti-money technology. Intangibility is definitely a new development in money (people remembering doesn't necessarily count, figuratively and literally Tongue), and it is not derived from the original 7 at all.

It will be interesting to see how the opinions of monetary theorists of this century will eventually settle on this issue (I have no doubt it will become a relevant debate, even if the conclusion is against an expanded group of properties)

I agree with intangibility being a benefit, we might have different definitions here though, how are you defining this?

A problem for gold as money was always that most people did not seem to understand that physical gold was simply a means to a global ledger. Instead many thought gold as money derived it's value through some sort of value gold had in itself (i.e. as jewelry or metal), but this was wrong. An intangible ledger makes it very clear exactly what money is and separates it from any other forms of value. Money is simply and honest stable mechanism to keep score, it has no value other than that which we place on it.

Yep, while gold is also art, display of wealth, a superb electrical conductor, tooth filler, historic money... bitcoin is nothing but pure money. It will nail the money value problem, that gold enthusiasts have quarreled over since the event of fiat.


justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 19, 2015, 06:25:55 PM
 #24365

Or likewise trying to suppress potentially-successful solutions to that problem by focusing attention and investment on the one least likely to succeed.

Who are you really working for Justus? Smiley
I really don't feel like I owe any answers to people who have done less work than I to improve economic understanding and financial privacy.

What have you done to make either situation better?
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:29:24 PM
 #24366

If we ever get to the point where a cryptocurrency is widely adopted and you can rationally say it represents something even vaguely resembling a global ledger, then overturning it would likely be very destructive.
There exists in society people whose interests are threatened by the existence of a universal, neutral, and incorruptible ledger.

Those of them who are aware of attempts to form one have very strong incentives to prevent that from happening by any means necessary.

Encouraging the development of multiple competing ledgers, either by investing in them directly, or investing in companies that produce them, or investing in propaganda to promote economic anti-knowledge, or investing in disruption tactics to slow down the development of the universal ledger are all actions such people could be expected to take.

Or likewise trying to suppress potentially-successful solutions to that problem by focusing attention and investment on the one least likely to succeed.

Bitcoin could succeed at being the NWO ledger and an anonymous solution could succeed at being the free market's ledger. But what if the free market doesn't want to give too much power to one ledger because it decides that true decentralization is competing options? What if unit-of-account is less important than meritocracy in this new knowledge era?

It seems you all are fixated on the concept that we need a global revolution into a single ledger. Why? What advantages would it offer to humanity? If the goal is simply to get crypto-currency spread out to most of humanity, we can not presume that the gridlock of "one size fits all" pooling of capital into groupthink catfights is the most efficient.

I really don't feel like I owe any answers to people who have done less work than I to improve economic understanding and financial privacy.

Nobody cares. What software did you write that we are using? Results are measurable. Claims on education are not.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:31:28 PM
 #24367

I think the best argument for one ledger is network effects. Network effects for money are very very strong. In order to enable a switch to a new money, there has to be a significant improvement over the existing money. Network effects are so strong that people continue to use fiat even though it has been inferior for decades. To me this is the main reason why Monero and other alts will not win, even if they offer some advantages (which I think is debatable), the advantages are not enough to overcome the network effects that are already behind bitcoin (which itself may not be able to beat the network effects of the dollar).

This is a better argument than what we usually see here since it focuses on might happen as a result of network effects, rather than you picking a winner and declaring that everyone else should support the winner you picked "because network effect". So, well presented, rocks.

Not sure about fiat being inferior for decades though.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:38:15 PM
 #24368

Note I predicated my assumption against a negative wealth effect on Bitcoin at this time with the assumption that TPTB are not stupid enough to cause a stampede into an anonymous coin too soon. I expect they won't ramp up the draconian shit until after the masses are already into Bitcoin. After 2017, the negative wealth effect can occur with the masses (majority) taking the losses. That is why I say you can gloat for a while then be left standing there arms-in-arms with the greater fools.

By that time it might be too late for those who might want an anonymous solution to gain critical mass and reach network effects. The TPTB would have won and can drag the world into a Dark Age global Technocracy. I am not asserting that is the only possible scenario.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:38:59 PM
 #24369

Bitcoin could succeed at being the NWO ledger and an anonymous solution could succeed at being the free market's ledger. But what if the free market doesn't want to give too much power to one ledger because it decides that true decentralization is competing options? What if unit-of-account is less important than meritocracy in this new knowledge era?

It seems you all are fixated on the concept that we need a global revolution into a single ledger.

Huh

I'm pretty sure I said the same thing on rpteilla's altcoin thread a year ago. It was clear to me then and is now that the advantages of a single unit-of-account are far lower in the information age with the ability to do near-frictionless conversions and automated accounting than they have ever been in history. Whether the advantage is now low enough for unit-of-account to fall away as an essential role of money is unclear. There are factors pushing in the other direction, such as globalization (a larger economy benefits more from a common unit-of-account than a smaller one).



Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:40:03 PM
 #24370

I agree with intangibility [of money] being a benefit, we might have different definitions here though, how are you defining this?

Private keys are the authority to spend your money. And because they're just random numbers, the ability to store your money safely is intangible to both the owner and everyone else. The actual storage itself depends on something tangible (mining & computer hardware), but we're working under an assumption that all the self interest mechanisms built into the satoshi design will protect and preserve the current blockchain from being destroyed or overpowered (and that's worked well so far).

A problem for gold as money was always that most people did not seem to understand that physical gold was simply a means to a global ledger. Instead many thought gold as money derived it's value through some sort of value gold had in itself (i.e. as jewelry or metal), but this was wrong. An intangible ledger makes it very clear exactly what money is and separates it from any other forms of value. Money is simply and honest stable mechanism to keep score, it has no value other than that which we place on it.

Exactly, it's not the fact that it's golden, but that some critical mass of people chose to use it (and a majority of that critical mass must have understood why). Money is an abstraction, plain and simple. The trouble always was that the original form of recording/processing abstract values or concepts (the animal brain) was not necessarily reliable. Cryptocurrency isn't 100% intangible, but it does get right that money should be represented as an abstraction only (fiat was essentially a hybrid commodity/abstraction money, whereby you could choose to observe the commodity value while the coins were still high purity, or the face value when they were 98% copper)

Vires in numeris
rpietila
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:44:15 PM
 #24371

I really don't feel like I owe any answers to people who have done less work than I to improve economic understanding and financial privacy.

Yeah, you have a very small bunch of people you owe answers to  Cheesy

Even I have a few less messages in BCT than you, and bought my coins a few months later a few dollars higher.

Whether you only refuse to answer or also close yourself to new information from others, is certainly up to you.

I am nevertheless grateful for your contributions so far.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:50:14 PM
 #24372

constantly switching to newer altcoins, even if they represent true improvements, is destructive to SOV.  thus, the whole concept of cryptocurrency as a SOV fails miserably.  they fail to see this thus their activities are destructive to the SOV concept.

This is one reason I've been wary of the "Bitcoin is shopper's paradise" idea of the past few years where merchant adoption was overemphasized or emphasized before its time, and the premature reference to Bitcoin as "the currency of the Internet" (/r/Bitcoin's sidebar) when it only "has currency," as it were, in a few niche markets so far. This marketing brought in so many people who didn't understand that everything is founded on SoV, and who didn't understand the ledger but rather thought of BTC as "digital coins you can send through the Internet" (the famous WeUseCoins video with 6M views), with all the second-thoughts and objections that that distorted understanding results in.

This is the first time I've noticed that these three misunderstandings are all interconnected and feed on one another. Roughly:

1) "Bitcoin is (already) a currency," rather than an investment based in part on its future promise of becoming a currency,* and where store of value is an afterthought, if that.

2) "Bitcoins are digital tokens" where the ledger and Money as Memory concept is completely missed.

3) "Switching protocols means switching ledgers," a.k.a. the Fundamental Theory of Altcoin Investing, and the cries of "Bitcoin maximalism."

*My favorite refutation of this misunderstanding is the gilded comment here in response to Rick Falvinge.



Representative snapshots from the subreddit sidebar, the WeUseCoins "What is Bitcoin?" video, and an Ethereum blog post:



rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:50:37 PM
 #24373

I agree with intangibility [of money] being a benefit, we might have different definitions here though, how are you defining this?

Private keys are the authority to spend your money. And because they're just random numbers, the ability to store your money safely is intangible to both the owner and everyone else. The actual storage itself depends on something tangible (mining & computer hardware), but we're working under an assumption that all the self interest mechanisms built into the satoshi design will protect and preserve the current blockchain from being destroyed or overpowered (and that's worked well so far).

Doesn't this just go back to portability though? One way to phase that is bitcoin is more portable than physical based money (gold) because it is just a bunch of random numbers. You can easily transport random numbers anywhere you can send information. This includes the ability to send money across the world in seconds, or even transport money into your head (brain wallet). Being intangible means something is more portable, including the ability to transport money into your mind, which is impossible with anything tangible.
79b79aa8d5047da6d3XX
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 192

◕_◕


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:53:38 PM
 #24374

i see this as all positive:

"We are now going to use our name, reputation and global index provider stature to provide bitcoin values that the rest of the market can look to," says Tom Farley, who serves as president of NYSE, the venerable financial institution that has come to symbolize Wall Street and capitalism more broadly."

"New technology does not intimidate us, it excites us," Farley says, effectively summing up the new mindset of NYSE. Bitcoin in particular excited him, both because of the interest in the currency and the blockchain technology behind it, which serves as a transaction database. "It was that curiosity and also... let's not wait for this to fully evolve; let's get a seat early on and see how this matures."

http://mashable.com/2015/05/19/new-york-stock-exchange-bitcoin/

Except the NYSE BTC "index", at least as initially set up, is a joke:

https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/indices/NYSE_Bitcoin_Index_Methodology.pdf

Quote
The Index is calculated on those days specified as Index business days. Index business days will be classified as any weekday throughout the calendar year.
The Index will be published within 2 hours following 4 PM U.K. time. It will be published with (4) decimals, and will be rounded on the last digit.
There is currently (1) Exchange/Venue whose bitcoin transaction data is included in the calculation of the Index: - Coinbase Exchange

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:53:53 PM
 #24375

constantly switching to newer altcoins, even if they represent true improvements, is destructive to SOV.  thus, the whole concept of cryptocurrency as a SOV fails miserably.  they fail to see this thus their activities are destructive to the SOV concept.

This is one reason I've been wary of the "Bitcoin is shopper's paradise" idea of the past few years where merchant adoption was overemphasized or emphasized before its time, and the premature reference to Bitcoin as "the currency of the Internet" (/r/Bitcoin's sidebar) when it only "has currency," as it were, in a few niche markets so far. This marketing brought in so many people who didn't understand that everything is founded on SoV, and who didn't understand the ledger but rather thought of BTC as "digital tokens you can send through the Internet" (the famous WeUseCoins video with 6M views), with all the second-thoughts and objections that distorted understanding results in.

Well, I agree with your observation about it all being terribly premature but I disagree with your conclusion. In fact my conclusion is exactly the opposite. It is precisely because that focus is premature that Bitcoin has zero legitimacy to claim to be the global ledger of anything other than Bitcoin. You can't be the global ledger of money until and unless you are established -- in reality not just in some supporters' imaginations -- as money.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:55:41 PM
 #24376

There are factors pushing in the other direction, such as globalization (a larger economy benefits more from a common unit-of-account than a smaller one).

I believe it is not the size but rather the quality of the economy that drives unit-of-account dominance. When you have fixed expenses, salaries, and budgeting then unit-of-account is paramount unless you can afford the carrying cost of hedging to the various units you account in. When the economy moves towards innovation and knowledge then fixed expenses are rather irrelevant. (I spend $1000 a month on myself and personal innovation could spontaneously generate 10 - 100X that). I'm having a difficult time fathoming how we don't move to a bifurcation of the global economy where those people who are unwilling to enter the knowledge age, vest themselves in the old world paradigm and the NWO of old world capital trying to hang on to all that it knows how to do. The only way I visualize it won't happen is if we fail and end up trapped in a horrific Dark Age.

Bitcoin seems to be predicated on the Moldberg unit-of-account dominance theory "there can only be one winner". The more I dig, the more I see in every facet it is morphing into the NWO coin and the supporters here are fixated on the oxymoron of unenslaving humanity by way of global, total dominance with one ledger. Do they not even consider this defies the trend of entropy (they create a very low entropy outcome that is a vacuum that can't be stable long-term). I suppose one can argue that the network effects from this low entropy spawn a lot of high entropy, thus offsetting my objection.

The market must be ripe for altcoin or altcoins that fulfill the knowledge age requirements for meritocracy, fungibility, decentralization, permissionless, adaptability, resilience, etc.. But perhaps if we wait too long, the network efforts of Bitcoin will be too great to overcome.

rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 07:00:18 PM
 #24377

I think the best argument for one ledger is network effects. Network effects for money are very very strong. In order to enable a switch to a new money, there has to be a significant improvement over the existing money. Network effects are so strong that people continue to use fiat even though it has been inferior for decades. To me this is the main reason why Monero and other alts will not win, even if they offer some advantages (which I think is debatable), the advantages are not enough to overcome the network effects that are already behind bitcoin (which itself may not be able to beat the network effects of the dollar).

This is a better argument than what we usually see here since it focuses on might happen as a result of network effects, rather than you picking a winner and declaring that everyone else should support the winner you picked "because network effect". So, well presented, rocks.

Not sure about fiat being inferior for decades though.

Not sure if this was agreeing or being sarcastic. Wink In case it was that later then I'd respond that I'm not saying Bitcoin will win "because network effect", I'm saying "because network effect" any follower has to be significantly better, not just moderately better.

The network effects for bitcoin vs. alts are very real and already present a significant hurdle for any of them to overcome. For example, in 2014 VCs invested >$300M in Bitcoin firms vs. near zero for any alt. Currently numerous websites, VPNs, etc, that I use accept Bitcoin, none to few accept any alt. The fact is there are already network effects in place for Bitcoin vs. alts. This makes the hurdle higher for things such as Monero.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 07:02:26 PM
 #24378

i see this as all positive:

"We are now going to use our name, reputation and global index provider stature to provide bitcoin values that the rest of the market can look to," says Tom Farley, who serves as president of NYSE, the venerable financial institution that has come to symbolize Wall Street and capitalism more broadly."

"New technology does not intimidate us, it excites us," Farley says, effectively summing up the new mindset of NYSE. Bitcoin in particular excited him, both because of the interest in the currency and the blockchain technology behind it, which serves as a transaction database. "It was that curiosity and also... let's not wait for this to fully evolve; let's get a seat early on and see how this matures."

http://mashable.com/2015/05/19/new-york-stock-exchange-bitcoin/

Except the NYSE BTC "index", at least as initially set up, is a joke:

https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/indices/NYSE_Bitcoin_Index_Methodology.pdf

Quote
The Index is calculated on those days specified as Index business days. Index business days will be classified as any weekday throughout the calendar year.
The Index will be published within 2 hours following 4 PM U.K. time. It will be published with (4) decimals, and will be rounded on the last digit.
There is currently (1) Exchange/Venue whose bitcoin transaction data is included in the calculation of the Index: - Coinbase Exchange



that's ok.  it's the concept that counts.  along with the built in marketing to the masses.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 19, 2015, 07:03:26 PM
 #24379

Whether you only refuse to answer or also close yourself to new information from others, is certainly up to you.

I am nevertheless grateful for your contributions so far.
There are some questions I want to answer in longer form than what what a forum post allows.

Right now time is the resource in most short supply for me.

How much of it should I allocate to debating economics, how much of it should I allocate to preparing for the next round of OBPP ratings, how much of it should I allocate to describing what a transition plan from the current P2P network to a market-based P2P network would look like, etc. etc. etc.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 07:08:24 PM
 #24380

i see this as all positive:

"We are now going to use our name, reputation and global index provider stature to provide bitcoin values that the rest of the market can look to," says Tom Farley, who serves as president of NYSE, the venerable financial institution that has come to symbolize Wall Street and capitalism more broadly."

"New technology does not intimidate us, it excites us," Farley says, effectively summing up the new mindset of NYSE. Bitcoin in particular excited him, both because of the interest in the currency and the blockchain technology behind it, which serves as a transaction database. "It was that curiosity and also... let's not wait for this to fully evolve; let's get a seat early on and see how this matures."

http://mashable.com/2015/05/19/new-york-stock-exchange-bitcoin/

Except the NYSE BTC "index", at least as initially set up, is a joke:

https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/indices/NYSE_Bitcoin_Index_Methodology.pdf

Quote
The Index is calculated on those days specified as Index business days. Index business days will be classified as any weekday throughout the calendar year.
The Index will be published within 2 hours following 4 PM U.K. time. It will be published with (4) decimals, and will be rounded on the last digit.
There is currently (1) Exchange/Venue whose bitcoin transaction data is included in the calculation of the Index: - Coinbase Exchange



Hardly a leader in tech, we already have 24/7/52 indexes.

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 ... 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!