Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[rocks]

The Observer has learned that this would not be the first time that Wells Fargo has expressed deep concern about crypto, specifically singling out Mr. McCaleb for special scrutiny. Until the beginning of 2014, Wells Fargo had a whole task force at its highest level comprising 20 of its top executives and advisors, including Susan Athey, a Stanford economics professor who sits on Ripple Labs’ board. They were marching forward to be the first U.S. bank to dive into crypto. All of a sudden, in March, just after the February collapse of Mt. Gox, they did a complete 180, shutting down the entire program that had been exploring crypto.

http://observer.com/2015/02/the-race-to-replace-bitcoin

Ah, the joys of heavily pre-mined alts

Meanwhile, after nearly a year off the grid, Mr. McCaleb had another idea for a company. This one was going to be a distributed consensus-based cryptocurrency, just like Ripple Labs—so much so that it was going to use all of Ripple Labs’ code, which was open source and available to anyone. But Mr. McCaleb had two aces up his sleeve that he hoped could allow his new company to soar above the one he just left. First, he still had the door open on the squashed Stripe deal. Second, he still held those 9 billion XRPs—a nice nest egg to turn into cash. And if dumping them hurt his former partners and company—a company he founded and on whose board he still remained, despite never showing up for board meetings—well, all the better.

On May 22, 2014, Mr. McCaleb announced via a posting on Ripple Labs’ message board, “I plan to start selling all of my remaining XRP beginning in two weeks.  …. So just fyi…. xrp sales incoming.” The announcement by a founder that he intended to dump 9 billion units of the currency he helped create was perceived as a threat by all who cared about Ripple Labs or held XRPs. It would be hard to imagine a founder and board member of a public company announcing he was going to flood the market by selling his stock; that would be an obvious and illegal attempt at market manipulation, not to mention ridiculously juvenile.

It gets into some pretty ugly personal life / bad father stuff from there.

The one thing we know about Satoshi at this point is he wasn't in this to make a fast buck or gain personal glory. He seems to have genuinely been interested in establishing an automated rules based system and then to step out of the way. I wouldn't be surprised if in 50 years his initial mining coins are still sitting untouched.

[1714064651]

1714064651

[Odalv]

Federated version of the Sidechains will be released in 1-2 months

http://insidebitcoins.com/news/gregory-maxwell-demo-sidechains-to-be-available-in-a-few-months/29531

Testing sidechains before the soft-fork

After explaining how this federated, demo version of sidechains would work, Maxwell went on to explain what happens after this version of sidechains has been tested in the wild:

“Beyond [federated sidechains], we have to see where it goes from there. It’ll take some time for the initial system to mature and for people to gain confidence enough to start saying, ‘OK. Well where can we start introducing the soft-forking, additional scrypt opcodes to make it so you can do it without the functionaries — without the federation.”

can't wait to see some of this in the wild.  

I like federated pegs, but every time I read confident statements like bold above I feel compelled to cash out a little early.

I've come around to your concerns in that federated pegs in the long run may pull enough transactions off the main chain that it weakens the network. i.e. What happens if people only use various SCs and the main chain is only used to settle value between them? Does that generate enough fees?

Of course bitcoin has the same issue with centralized services. Take changetip as an example, all of their transactions happen off chain and do not contribute. They only interact with the main chain and provide fees when BTC is eventually withdrawn from the changetip service.

Over time Bitcoin could very easily turn into a collection of centralized services that all enable people to function off the main chain, and the main chain is only used for transferring value between these services. Maybe that is enough to protect the network, maybe not.

Federated pegs and side chains could actually improve this situation, but only if they are structured so that their transactions support the main chain as well. Merged mining is one possible solution, I'm sure there are others. The key is to structure them as child chains, not side chains. Essentially bitcoin needs to maintain its self-contained structure with no external dependencies, child chains that are dependent on the main chain and also contribute their economic value to the main chain (through merged mining) do that.

1. Bitcoins are only created on main chain (bitcoin blockchain)
2. Side chains are child chains.
3. The smaller bitcoin blockchain is (smaller block) the more miners will mine it and MC will be more decentralized

[marcus_of_augustus]

The one thing we know about Satoshi at this point is he wasn't in this to make a fast buck or gain personal glory. He seems to have genuinely been interested in establishing an automated rules based system and then to step out of the way. I wouldn't be surprised if in 50 years his initial mining coins are still sitting untouched.

it's about sending a message.

[Adrian-x]

1. Bitcoins are only created on main chain (bitcoin blockchain)
2. Side chains are child chains.
3. The smaller bitcoin blockchain is (smaller block) the more miners will mine it and MC will be more decentralized

1) that's not the concern, you can earn a Bitcoin equivalent on the protocol level by mining a SideChain, that's the issue.
2) in concept they are dependent children but even you have illustrated how the family tree can be severed, and with enough economic energy they could grow up and eclipse Bitcoin in value.
3) no evidence to support this false statement, in fact miners don't care about the blockchain size, there only related concern is how fast blocks propagate. Nodes on the other hand may have a legitimate concern but they don't have to be miners and there contribution is born of there own expense and benefits the network as a whole, it is regulated by the Bitcoin Incentive structure there contribution needs to be motivated by the success of the network as a whole.

Blockstream proposed soft fork is wrestling power away form the nodes who govern the protocol into the hands of the miners, and central planers or those who seek to control them.  
 

[Melbustus]

The one thing we know about Satoshi at this point is he wasn't in this to make a fast buck or gain personal glory. He seems to have genuinely been interested in establishing an automated rules based system and then to step out of the way. I wouldn't be surprised if in 50 years his initial mining coins are still sitting untouched.

it's about sending a message.

I would love to see all of satoshi's coins burned to an unspendable output in a single transaction. It'd be an incredible statement. ...though the market would insta dump for a minute or two when BDD shows a spike to ~2,000,000,000.

[rocks]

The one thing we know about Satoshi at this point is he wasn't in this to make a fast buck or gain personal glory. He seems to have genuinely been interested in establishing an automated rules based system and then to step out of the way. I wouldn't be surprised if in 50 years his initial mining coins are still sitting untouched.

it's about sending a message.

Are you saying that the Joker was good? Or that we are evil?

Or are you simply saying its time to burn the system down.

[brg444]

1. Bitcoins are only created on main chain (bitcoin blockchain)
2. Side chains are child chains.
3. The smaller bitcoin blockchain is (smaller block) the more miners will mine it and MC will be more decentralized

1) that's not the concern, you can earn a Bitcoin equivalent on the protocol level by mining a SideChain, that's the issue.

absolutely false

[Adrian-x]

1. Bitcoins are only created on main chain (bitcoin blockchain)
2. Side chains are child chains.
3. The smaller bitcoin blockchain is (smaller block) the more miners will mine it and MC will be more decentralized

1) that's not the concern, you can earn a Bitcoin equivalent on the protocol level by mining a SideChain, that's the issue.

absolutely false

How so?

What mechanism would SC use to secure there chain?

Would transaction fees not be an option?

[majamalu]

D&T with a treatise on why the blocksize must be raised: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0

Hopefully between that and https://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/01/21/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-1-scarcity/ this stupid argument is over.

Great job. Here's the Spanish version: http://elbitcoin.org/bloques-el-tamano-si-importa/

[Erdogan]

Low oil prices, or deflation generally, explained with the age of the capital.
(The time from investment to finished consumer goods)

All investment comes from savings, that is the consumer consumes less than the producer produces, (and the consumer and the producer is really the same person).

We have short time investments, like the chairs in the hairdressers saloon, or the food in the restaurant, or the wares in a sport shop. The investment returns in a short time.

Then we have the long time investments. The oil that we consume now, comes from platforms and wells that were made dozens of years ago. The same goes for hydro power and iron ore mines. The oil wells we invest in now, will give us oil to consume in twenty years.

In between are investments of varying time to consumable products.

The price signals govern what the capitalists invest in. For long time capital investments, it was oil and iron. What is invested now, likewise is governed by the price signals. Some think that electric cars, and self driving cars are the thing of the future, therefore the megafactory.

There is a balance between saving and the different categories of investments. If the consumers save more, in aggregate, than they used to, more capital is available, bidding down the interest (and bidding down current consumer prices). This signals to investors: forget short time investments, go long term!

Opposite, if consumers save less, they bid up current consumer goods and less capital is available. Both signals to the investor: Forget long term, invest in goods and services for the immediate future. And the balance is restored.

NOW, WHAT HAPPENED?

Central banks, not the savers, made money available, bidding down the interest rate. Since the financial crisis, but really, long before that, all the way back to the eighties.

This signalled to investors: Go long term! AND to the consumers: Consume now!
This is the reason for the epic imbalance in the capital structure. We have had bidding up of consumer goods and at the same time heavy investing in long term investments. Now, after these investments begin to materialize into consumer goods, we have exhausted consumers (lending), and a surplus of goods from long time investments (oil, iron, buildings, infrastructure). Too many oil wells, mines, railways, car factories hotels, offices and houses. (If you haven't seen surplus in all that, you will soon). Errors in deployment of scarce capital means lower productivity and lower standard of living for all. It is a world problem.

The problem will persist as long as the interest rate is manipulated by central banks, and years after.

[tabnloz]

Banks no longer need to make deposits or give loans. They get enough free money from QE. According to the article, if banks have to pay CB's to store deposits (negative rates) then so too will customers of said banks.

“We cannot pay interest on an account and then deposit the money at negative rates in the central bank,” Christian Clausen, chief executive officer of Nordea Bank AB, said in an interview in Stockholm. “It simply won’t fly.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-28/nordea-bank-may-charge-clients-for-deposits-amid-negative-rates

It will be a watershed day when/if this is announced. People have rolled over and accepted so many awful policies, surely this will be a catalyst for a society wide wake up?

[hdbuck]

The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment: http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx

[iCEBREAKER]

Low oil prices, or deflation generally, explained with the age of the capital.
(The time from investment to finished consumer goods)

All investment comes from savings, that is the consumer consumes less than the producer produces, (and the consumer and the producer is really the same person).

We have short time investments, like the chairs in the hairdressers saloon, or the food in the restaurant, or the wares in a sport shop. The investment returns in a short time.

Then we have the long time investments. The oil that we consume now, comes from platforms and wells that were made dozens of years ago. The same goes for hydro power and iron ore mines. The oil wells we invest in now, will give us oil to consume in twenty years.

In between are investments of varying time to consumable products.

The price signals govern what the capitalists invest in. For long time capital investments, it was oil and iron. What is invested now, likewise is governed by the price signals. Some think that electric cars, and self driving cars are the thing of the future, therefore the megafactory.

There is a balance between saving and the different categories of investments. If the consumers save more, in aggregate, than they used to, more capital is available, bidding down the interest (and bidding down current consumer prices). This signals to investors: forget short time investments, go long term!

Opposite, if consumers save less, they bid up current consumer goods and less capital is available. Both signals to the investor: Forget long term, invest in goods and services for the immediate future. And the balance is restored.

NOW, WHAT HAPPENED?

Central banks, not the savers, made money available, bidding down the interest rate. Since the financial crisis, but really, long before that, all the way back to the eighties.

This signalled to investors: Go long term! AND to the consumers: Consume now!
This is the reason for the epic imbalance in the capital structure. We have had bidding up of consumer goods and at the same time heavy investing in long term investments. Now, after these investments begin to materialize into consumer goods, we have exhausted consumers (lending), and a surplus of goods from long time investments (oil, iron, buildings, infrastructure). Too many oil wells, mines, railways, car factories hotels, offices and houses. (If you haven't seen surplus in all that, you will soon). Errors in deployment of scarce capital means lower productivity and lower standard of living for all. It is a world problem.

The problem will persist as long as the interest rate is manipulated by central banks, and years after.

Good stuff and makes our current predicament very clear.

But to what end?

Stand With Rand?  Go Galt?
Short everything but the almighty dollar?
Move to Goa and dance on the beach?

[NewLiberty]

1. Bitcoins are only created on main chain (bitcoin blockchain)
2. Side chains are child chains.
3. The smaller bitcoin blockchain is (smaller block) the more miners will mine it and MC will be more decentralized

1) that's not the concern, you can earn a Bitcoin equivalent on the protocol level by mining a SideChain, that's the issue.

absolutely false

How so?

What mechanism would SC use to secure there chain?

Would transaction fees not be an option?

It isn't "absolutely" false, (nor is it universally true) it would depend on the SC.  The SC can do pretty much anything.

[Odalv]

1. Bitcoins are only created on main chain (bitcoin blockchain)
2. Side chains are child chains.
3. The smaller bitcoin blockchain is (smaller block) the more miners will mine it and MC will be more decentralized

1) that's not the concern, you can earn a Bitcoin equivalent on the protocol level by mining a SideChain, that's the issue.

absolutely false

How so?

What mechanism would SC use to secure there chain?

Would transaction fees not be an option?

It isn't "absolutely" false, (nor is it universally true) it would depend on the SC.  The SC can do pretty much anything.

We are talking about 2wp SC 1:1 (no new bitcoins can be mined on SC)

[Erdogan]

Low oil prices, or deflation generally, explained with the age of the capital.
(The time from investment to finished consumer goods)

All investment comes from savings, that is the consumer consumes less than the producer produces, (and the consumer and the producer is really the same person).

We have short time investments, like the chairs in the hairdressers saloon, or the food in the restaurant, or the wares in a sport shop. The investment returns in a short time.

Then we have the long time investments. The oil that we consume now, comes from platforms and wells that were made dozens of years ago. The same goes for hydro power and iron ore mines. The oil wells we invest in now, will give us oil to consume in twenty years.

In between are investments of varying time to consumable products.

The price signals govern what the capitalists invest in. For long time capital investments, it was oil and iron. What is invested now, likewise is governed by the price signals. Some think that electric cars, and self driving cars are the thing of the future, therefore the megafactory.

There is a balance between saving and the different categories of investments. If the consumers save more, in aggregate, than they used to, more capital is available, bidding down the interest (and bidding down current consumer prices). This signals to investors: forget short time investments, go long term!

Opposite, if consumers save less, they bid up current consumer goods and less capital is available. Both signals to the investor: Forget long term, invest in goods and services for the immediate future. And the balance is restored.

NOW, WHAT HAPPENED?

Central banks, not the savers, made money available, bidding down the interest rate. Since the financial crisis, but really, long before that, all the way back to the eighties.

This signalled to investors: Go long term! AND to the consumers: Consume now!
This is the reason for the epic imbalance in the capital structure. We have had bidding up of consumer goods and at the same time heavy investing in long term investments. Now, after these investments begin to materialize into consumer goods, we have exhausted consumers (lending), and a surplus of goods from long time investments (oil, iron, buildings, infrastructure). Too many oil wells, mines, railways, car factories hotels, offices and houses. (If you haven't seen surplus in all that, you will soon). Errors in deployment of scarce capital means lower productivity and lower standard of living for all. It is a world problem.

The problem will persist as long as the interest rate is manipulated by central banks, and years after.

Good stuff and makes our current predicament very clear.

But to what end?

Stand With Rand?  Go Galt?
Short everything but the almighty dollar?
Move to Goa and dance on the beach?

Adding that the interest rate in the bond market is not a good indicator, that only shows what the politicians, including the bankers, do. The interesting indicators are the price of long term commodities (oil, iron ore) and the price of and demand for capital assets that are invested (caterpillar tons of machinery (not profit)), surveying businesses in oil and mining, oil rigs and oil rig builders, oil pipes, conveyor belts, that kind of things.

I am afraid that a hard reset is the only way to rebalance at this point.

We don't need to suffer, we have bitcoins.

[ssmc2]

The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment: http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx

One of many

[NewLiberty]

Low oil prices, or deflation generally, explained with the age of the capital.
(The time from investment to finished consumer goods)

All investment comes from savings, that is the consumer consumes less than the producer produces, (and the consumer and the producer is really the same person).

We have short time investments, like the chairs in the hairdressers saloon, or the food in the restaurant, or the wares in a sport shop. The investment returns in a short time.

Then we have the long time investments. The oil that we consume now, comes from platforms and wells that were made dozens of years ago. The same goes for hydro power and iron ore mines. The oil wells we invest in now, will give us oil to consume in twenty years.

In between are investments of varying time to consumable products.

The price signals govern what the capitalists invest in. For long time capital investments, it was oil and iron. What is invested now, likewise is governed by the price signals. Some think that electric cars, and self driving cars are the thing of the future, therefore the megafactory.

There is a balance between saving and the different categories of investments. If the consumers save more, in aggregate, than they used to, more capital is available, bidding down the interest (and bidding down current consumer prices). This signals to investors: forget short time investments, go long term!

Opposite, if consumers save less, they bid up current consumer goods and less capital is available. Both signals to the investor: Forget long term, invest in goods and services for the immediate future. And the balance is restored.

NOW, WHAT HAPPENED?

Central banks, not the savers, made money available, bidding down the interest rate. Since the financial crisis, but really, long before that, all the way back to the eighties.

This signalled to investors: Go long term! AND to the consumers: Consume now!
This is the reason for the epic imbalance in the capital structure. We have had bidding up of consumer goods and at the same time heavy investing in long term investments. Now, after these investments begin to materialize into consumer goods, we have exhausted consumers (lending), and a surplus of goods from long time investments (oil, iron, buildings, infrastructure). Too many oil wells, mines, railways, car factories hotels, offices and houses. (If you haven't seen surplus in all that, you will soon). Errors in deployment of scarce capital means lower productivity and lower standard of living for all. It is a world problem.

The problem will persist as long as the interest rate is manipulated by central banks, and years after.

Good stuff and makes our current predicament very clear.

But to what end?

Stand With Rand?  Go Galt?
Short everything but the almighty dollar?
Move to Goa and dance on the beach?

But, aren't those central bankers the smartest people in the world, who have only the general health and happiness of the global population at heart?

Or...?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NlXbeB9mNg

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2014/12/19/its-official-elvira-nabiullina-wins-the-tall-pointy-hat-award-for-mismanagement-of-the-ruble/
(When I read articles about gold, I also mentally substitute in Bitcoin.  The larger population will get there eventually.)
Nathan Lewis is Steve Forbes gold guy.  Most Forbes articles on gold come from his pen.  I shared a private dinner with him and Bernard von NotHaus at a Malibu Beach restaurant a couple years back.  We had some lively discussions.

[Erdogan]

Low oil prices, or deflation generally, explained with the age of the capital.
(The time from investment to finished consumer goods)

All investment comes from savings, that is the consumer consumes less than the producer produces, (and the consumer and the producer is really the same person).

We have short time investments, like the chairs in the hairdressers saloon, or the food in the restaurant, or the wares in a sport shop. The investment returns in a short time.

Then we have the long time investments. The oil that we consume now, comes from platforms and wells that were made dozens of years ago. The same goes for hydro power and iron ore mines. The oil wells we invest in now, will give us oil to consume in twenty years.

In between are investments of varying time to consumable products.

The price signals govern what the capitalists invest in. For long time capital investments, it was oil and iron. What is invested now, likewise is governed by the price signals. Some think that electric cars, and self driving cars are the thing of the future, therefore the megafactory.

There is a balance between saving and the different categories of investments. If the consumers save more, in aggregate, than they used to, more capital is available, bidding down the interest (and bidding down current consumer prices). This signals to investors: forget short time investments, go long term!

Opposite, if consumers save less, they bid up current consumer goods and less capital is available. Both signals to the investor: Forget long term, invest in goods and services for the immediate future. And the balance is restored.

NOW, WHAT HAPPENED?

Central banks, not the savers, made money available, bidding down the interest rate. Since the financial crisis, but really, long before that, all the way back to the eighties.

This signalled to investors: Go long term! AND to the consumers: Consume now!
This is the reason for the epic imbalance in the capital structure. We have had bidding up of consumer goods and at the same time heavy investing in long term investments. Now, after these investments begin to materialize into consumer goods, we have exhausted consumers (lending), and a surplus of goods from long time investments (oil, iron, buildings, infrastructure). Too many oil wells, mines, railways, car factories hotels, offices and houses. (If you haven't seen surplus in all that, you will soon). Errors in deployment of scarce capital means lower productivity and lower standard of living for all. It is a world problem.

The problem will persist as long as the interest rate is manipulated by central banks, and years after.

Good stuff and makes our current predicament very clear.

But to what end?

Stand With Rand?  Go Galt?
Short everything but the almighty dollar?
Move to Goa and dance on the beach?

But, aren't those central bankers the smartest people in the world, who have only the general health and happiness of the global population at heart?

Or...?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NlXbeB9mNg

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2014/12/19/its-official-elvira-nabiullina-wins-the-tall-pointy-hat-award-for-mismanagement-of-the-ruble/
(When I read articles about gold, I also mentally substitute in Bitcoin.  The larger population will get there eventually.)
Nathan Lewis is Steve Forbes gold guy.  Most Forbes articles on gold come from his pen.  I shared a private dinner with him and Bernard von NotHaus at a Malibu Beach restaurant a couple years back.  We had some lively discussions.

If they did what they say they do, they could regulate the market, just like any daytrader. The only difference. A daytrader who consistently loses, will go out of business, but a central bank that consistently loses, just takes a cut from everybody else and continues the loss. That is if they just regulate, which they don't.

They don't take it from the taxes, someone could notice. They instead take it from the money system, fucking it up. The most important asset, part of every trade, money, just fucking it up.

[cypherdoc]

Gold collapsing.  Bitcoin bottoming.