Bloo Loo Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Well Bitcoin has worked at 1c, 10c, $1, $10, $100 and $1000. The exchanges are growing in popularity. So why would $1m be different? its not the exchanges that are at risk from this aspect....its the trade aids that enable a trader to change into fiat...a trader has to be sure he is going to get his FIAT value, if its wild like the last three days in dollars, from 800 to 1200, imagine selling your widget on line Sunday for what you thought was $1300 worth only on Monday to find your account pays you $800. And if the convertors hang on to the BTC, they are also vulnerable to the same issue...and there are no futures to protect the value of BTC trades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 (edited) You hit the nail on the head there. Open sores and free (free like free speech not free beer) software is all very well until it becomes a political tool, founded on the vendetta that a few people had against their former employers. There are some who are so fanatical about it, they attempt to force everybody else to work by their model, because they're in an intellectual position to do so. While there are numerous benefits to sharing effort in producing something useful, it does make you wonder, what if car makers, tradesmen and other workers started giving stuff away and publishing the instructions on how to make them - would anybody ever get paid and would there continue to even be a need for payment? We can surmise that if the people paying with and accepting bitcoin were to be required to apply the same principles to everything else in their lives, they might not be so smug. You are arguing against the principle of competition; insofar as your ramble constitutes an argument at all. You segue from things being free to being part of a vendetta, to a fanatical monopoly, to sharing production, to I can't quite make out what. Anyone is freee to design and build their own software (or car); they can even legally sell it as long as it does not infringe other peoples patents and copyright. There are plenty of instructions available on how to make your own car. Few people do, not because anyone has a monopoly on making cars in general, but because toher people (car manufacturers) are bewtter at it and add value in some way. If someone has a monopoly that they exploit, then people will avoid, or try to break that monopoly I don't see what is smug about trying to break the stranglehold of corrupt governments and banks on the economy and supply of money. Edited December 3, 2013 by happy_renting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 its not the exchanges that are at risk from this aspect....its the trade aids that enable a trader to change into fiat...a trader has to be sure he is going to get his FIAT value, if its wild like the last three days in dollars, from 800 to 1200, imagine selling your widget on line Sunday for what you thought was $1300 worth only on Monday to find your account pays you $800. And if the convertors hang on to the BTC, they are also vulnerable to the same issue...and there are no futures to protect the value of BTC trades. There are competing dynamics; to be a useful means of exchange, some price stability is required; for Bitcoin to grow, a speculative phase seems to be needed. But the speculation, on the price of bitcoin in other currencies, centres on it ultimately becoming something of value and utility, i.e. a stable means of exchange. So more speculation drives the price up, reducing stability; reducing it's usefullness as a stable means of exchange, reducing it's value from it's potential usefulness, driving the price down again. A negative feedback mechanism that should tend to stabilise the value. I think that people generally assume that an equilibrium will eventually be reached. BTC cannot grow forever, that is common sense. The equilibrium value, against, say, the $, remains to be found. It is zero, or something higher. The final value may be arbitrary, rather than rational.Time will tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pindar Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 You are arguing against the principle of competition; insofar as your ramble constitutes an argument at all. You segue from things being free to being part of a vendetta, to a fanatical monopoly, to sharing production, to I can't quite make out what. Anyone is freee to design and build their own software (or car); they can even legally sell it as long as it does not infringe other peoples patents and copyright. There are plenty of instructions available on how to make your own car. If someone has a monopoly that they exploit, then people will avoid, or try to break that monopoly I don't see what is smug about trying to break the stranglehold of corrupt governments and banks on the economy and supply of money. Well it's clear that you've completely misunderstood since you are one of the fanatics and to a fanatic, any criticism is perceived as being a direct attack. You're so naive that you don't realise that it's the very corporations and governments you claim to despise so much who are harnessing the multitude of open sores programs to further enslave us and you're promoting it like it's the second coming. You just don't like anybody pointing out the fallacy that open sores on its own is the answer to all the failings of the financial system. It's patently ridiculous to put all your faith in it because of a belief that you're somehow being abused by closed source programs all day long. It's also ridiculous to presume that the majority of non technical people are in a position to verify that open sores software is what it says it is - that is without putting their trust in some internet guru who claims to understand it. It's the lack of financial regulation and the merger of government and corporate power that's destroying the world, not the lack of a crypto currency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justthisbloke Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Forgive me if this has already been discussed already (can't face 80 pages) but how is this any different from the tulip bubble? I have done a bit of research till my head hurts (and I work in IT) I googled the graph and it just feels like a bubble/mania to me. http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#tgSzm1g10zm2g25zv With the tulip mania, you were at least left holding a tangiable asset. It *does* make your brain hurt. I've done intellectually demanding things in the past but getting my brain around BTC made me feel like Einstein. It's not just a mathematical concept of brilliance (but it most certainly is that) but it's also a genius of implementation, social engineering, psychological understanding and economic and financial vision. It does make you wonder about the origins - was the team/creator *aware* or is it serendipity? But, yeah, it makes your brain hurt. As to tulips and manias. Possibly. Probably. But that doesn't change the fundamentals. Which aren't any odder than a scrap of paper being worth 500 euro just because it's got "500 euro" printed on it. Or a lump of not particularly useful metal being worth over 1000 USD. It's all tokens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 There are competing dynamics; to be a useful means of exchange, some price stability is required; for Bitcoin to grow, a speculative phase seems to be needed. But the speculation, on the price of bitcoin in other currencies, centres on it ultimately becoming something of value and utility, i.e. a stable means of exchange. So more speculation drives the price up, reducing stability; reducing it's usefullness as a stable means of exchange, reducing it's value from it's potential usefulness, driving the price down again. A negative feedback mechanism that should tend to stabilise the value. I think that people generally assume that an equilibrium will eventually be reached. BTC cannot grow forever, that is common sense. The equilibrium value, against, say, the $, remains to be found. It is zero, or something higher. The final value may be arbitrary, rather than rational.Time will tell. ah, I sense a reversal of the Logic of the deflationary aspect of BTC...some say, that in order for it to deflate, it has to have a high value... No...a deflating item needs to start LOW and work it way up....BTC is doing the exact opposite...its gone high....when in fact that going high should have been caused by ubiquity, not speculation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Well it's clear that you've completely misunderstood since you are one of the fanatics and to a fanatic, any criticism is perceived as being a direct attack. You're so naive that you don't realise that it's the very corporations and governments you claim to despise so much who are harnessing the multitude of open sores programs to further enslave us and you're promoting it like it's the second coming. You just don't like anybody pointing out the fallacy that open sores on its own is the answer to all the failings of the financial system. It's patently ridiculous to put all your faith in it because of a belief that you're somehow being abused by closed source programs all day long. It's also ridiculous to presume that the majority of non technical people are in a position to verify that open sores software is what it says it is - that is without putting their trust in some internet guru who claims to understand it. It's the lack of financial regulation and the merger of government and corporate power that's destroying the world, not the lack of a crypto currency. Ooooh, nice ad hominem there. Oh wait.... no, on second thoughts, You accuse me of making all sorts of claims that I have not made. So it was a really lame, idiotic ad hominem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 ah, I sense a reversal of the Logic of the deflationary aspect of BTC...some say, that in order for it to deflate, it has to have a high value... No...a deflating item needs to start LOW and work it way up....BTC is doing the exact opposite...its gone high....when in fact that going high should have been caused by ubiquity, not speculation. My point is that the conflict between speculation and use as a means of exchange does not mean that BTC will necessarily implode/fail/crash, but (may) eventually lead to a satisfactory equilibrium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-03/one-big-problem-bitcoin ..The Argentine government has imposed a series of desperate capital controls and price controls, including severe restrictions on purchasing gold and foreign currencies. Most Argentines have been left to suffer the terrible inflation and erosion of purchasing power that comes with holding a rapidly depreciating paper currency. But for some Argentines, Bitcoin has been a salvation. And demand for the digital currency has soared in the country as people have realized that Bitcoin cannot be controlled or nationalized by the Argentine government. As a result, Bitcoins in Argentina frequently trade for more than 30% higher than in neighboring countries… presenting a rather interesting arbitrage opportunity. With all the mainstream attention, though, Bitcoin has been building its share of detractors. I read an article on Forbes recently entitled something like “Why Bitcoin is doomed to fail”. Fun and games once the speculators get involved... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NatterJackToad Posted December 3, 2013 Author Share Posted December 3, 2013 Satoshi Nakamoto voted as candidate for the Guardian's person of the year: Nobody knows who she or he is, nor even whether s/he is a single person or a group (though the latter seems unlikely). The pseudonymous Japanese name is a fake. But that is the given name of the inventor of Bitcoin, the digital currency that has gone from a nerd's delight in 2009 to something taken seriously by central bankers in 2013, and whose notional value passed $1,000 a "coin" in November.Bitcoin shows huge promise as real "digital cash" for the internet: just as with cash, you can buy goods and services with it essentially anonymously (each "coin" has a serial number, like a banknote, but few people worry about their cash transactions being traced). You don't have to go via a bank or other middleman; coin authentication is peer to peer. And it can bear a certain amount of inflation – every coin can be split into 100m "satoshis", each of which would be worth 0.001 cents at an exchange rate of $1,000 for each Bitcoin. If Bitcoin's exchange rate continues to rocket, those satoshis could come in handy. That could make Bitcoins an essential medium for online transactions once its exchange rate with non-digital currencies settles down. That's why central bankers are looking at it seriously. With the internet seeping into everything we do, the need for a really digital currency is becoming increasingly urgent. Given all the internet sleuthing that has gone on, it's unlikely that a duo or group could have kept secret for this long how they devised the cryptographic protocols, peer-to-peer systems, and economic model that underlies Bitcoin. Someone would have cracked, whispered or cashed in; which points to Nakamoto being a lone operator. The New Yorker suggested it might be a Finnish researcher, Vili Lehdonvirta, at the Helsinki Institute for Information Technology. He laughed and denied it. The writer then suggested that Michael Clear, an Irish researcher, might be. He denied it too. Fast Company magazine pointed out that a patent filed in August 2008 by Neal King, Vladimir Oksman and Charles Bry seemed to have some similarities to Bitcoin's technologies; all three have denied being Nakamoto. It's widely believed that Nakamoto has a huge hoard of Bitcoins created back at the currency's dawn, which could now be cashed in for vast amounts. But again, there's no proof. All we have is Nakamoto's original 2008 paper – and Bitcoin http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/03/person-of-year-2013-who-gets-your-vote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pindar Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Ooooh, nice ad hominem there. Oh wait.... no, on second thoughts, You accuse me of making all sorts of claims that I have not made. So it was a really lame, idiotic ad hominem. Did you just look that up on the Internet? I don't see how shooting down the myth that you're desperately trying to perpetuate is ad hominem. As far as I can see, you'll attempt to claim any dissent from your delirium over bitcoin as some sort of personal attack. People are making all sorts of ridiculous claims about bitcoin without having seen it operate in a stable, useful manner for any significant time. You even went so far as claiming it was wresting control over the economy from the banks and governments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Stefan Molyneux reads the original Bitcoin white paper here: It may help some to understand the technology better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 Has anyone posted about the exchange that disappeared this week with 70 million bucks worth of people's bitcoins and cash? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skrillex Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 Has anyone posted about the exchange that disappeared this week with 70 million bucks worth of people's bitcoins and cash? Sheepmarket was an anonymous market place on Tor for buying and selling illegal goods. It wasn't a Bitcoin exchange. But I guess you already knew that. Also the 70 million dollars is only a wild estimate. Nobody can know for sure except the scammers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 Sheepmarket was an anonymous market place on Tor for buying and selling illegal goods. It wasn't a Bitcoin exchange. But I guess you already knew that. Also the 70 million dollars is only a wild estimate. Nobody can know for sure except the scammers. Nah, I didn't know that. So, drugs like that silkroad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buyerbeware Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 I think the biggest problem with bit coin will be not getting ripped off and that will deter widespread use. It is all very well saying it is like cash, but cash is low tech to secure and guard (for small amounts). It seems we need banks to deal in bit coin or some organization to provide security and administer transactions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 (edited) So how does the idea that 1 BTC might be worth £nnnn, where nnnn is some large number of your choice, martially affect its chances of success ?. Because it encourages hoarding rather than exchanging. A currency has two primary functions - a store of value and a medium of exchange. Inflationary currencies reduce the store of value aspect (no point in holding onto something that is going down in value), deflationary currencies reduce the medium of exchange aspect (why spend today when your money is worth more tomorrow). The fixed limit on the number of bitcoins means that its deflationary aspect is baked in which, at the very least, will slow its adoption as a medium of exchange. Currencies that are neither inflationary or deflationary are, I suppose, a happy medium (but that's hard to pull off). Personally, I favour a mildly inflationary currency where the store of value aspect is predicated on investment rather than just holding cash. Edited December 4, 2013 by tomandlu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NatterJackToad Posted December 4, 2013 Author Share Posted December 4, 2013 Nah, I didn't know that. So, drugs like that silkroad? Yes. It was a drug dealing website that got hacked. Why people give these websites their coins to store, I do not know! Put them in your own walltets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 (edited) Did you just look that up on the Internet? I don't see how shooting down the myth that you're desperately trying to perpetuate is ad hominem. As far as I can see, you'll attempt to claim any dissent from your delirium over bitcoin as some sort of personal attack. People are making all sorts of ridiculous claims about bitcoin without having seen it operate in a stable, useful manner for any significant time. You even went so far as claiming it was wresting control over the economy from the banks and governments. More ad hominem. As far as I can see, you'll attempt to claim any dissent from your opinion is delerium and desperation (highlighted above). Your insults are gratuitous, unnecessary and lend nothing to your case. If you bother to read my posts, I identify and discuss many potential pitfalls with Bitcoin. But you evidently can't attack Bitcoin without also using sneering and spite against anyone who disagrees with you. No doubt because you seem unable to frame your points in a constructive, reasoned way; they are just disjointed snippets and trolling. If 'People are making all sorts of ridiculous claims about bitcoin without having seen it operate in a stable, useful manner for any significant time' then your claims to the contrary are also necessarily invalid for the same reasons. Edited December 4, 2013 by happy_renting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Dutchman Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 http://bitcoinity.org/markets/bitstamp/USD are now displaying the BTC price in mBTC where 1000 mBTC = 1 BTC. Seems to be having a positive psychological effect on buyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 (edited) . http://bitcoinity.org/markets/bitstamp/USD are now displaying the BTC price in mBTC where 1000 mBTC = 1 BTC. Seems to be having a positive psychological effect on buyers. I don't discern any effect so far. Edited December 4, 2013 by happy_renting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zante Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 . I don't discern any effect so far. It's working, I'm currently trading at $1.8k to 1btc and the value keeps rising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zante Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 It's working, I'm currently trading at $1.8k to 1btc and the value keeps rising. 1.08 rather - soz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NatterJackToad Posted December 4, 2013 Author Share Posted December 4, 2013 . I don't discern any effect so far. Me neither. Hopefully slow and steady push to 1250 now. Volatility has been quite something recently. The move to mBTC is a good one. It’ll have a positive effect on new buyers, who can now see they can get full numbers of BTC with a few dollars. You don’t want to part with $1000 to get 0.9BTC Much rather have 900mBTC. If it’s a success buyers will eventually be looking at the exchange rate between satoshi’s and dollars. This is when Average Joe will jump in (hopefully the tech and infrastructure will have improved massively by then as well). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 http://bitcoinity.or...ts/bitstamp/USD are now displaying the BTC price in mBTC where 1000 mBTC = 1 BTC. Seems to be having a positive psychological effect on buyers. its all about the sales now for the exchanges....£4.99 is a whole lot less than £5. They are preparing for the time when a single BTC puts you in the 1%...it aint gonna happen, but thats the pitch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.