This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Bitcoin Now More Popular Than Obamacare
Much has been said about Bitcoin: an alternative currency; a "honeypot" scheme by the central banks and Feds to capture excess cash, punish the rebellious and track abusers of money laundering laws; a revolution against fiat. Perhaps one other word may be used as well: "distraction"?
(h/t @Not_Jim_Cramer)
»
- 14299 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
down from the 1200 peak? yes it is.
And the drop to 650? That's a 46% drop nearly.
In a DAY.
ya, that's a crash. Another big one's coming, bigger every time, nastier drops, lower levels of bouncing up.
Then it's done. Gone. Over.
...and they're both backed by the same hot air and peddlers of false hope.
Government forced communist medical care and free choice peer to peer transactions. Yea same thing, you nailed it dude.
da plane da plane
One is backed by hard math, and the other is backed by lies and secret agendas.
I'll take the math thank-you.
If you like your math, you can keep your math. I regret not adding more BTC this weekend on the dip.
Not sure where it ends up but it looks like it's going to go a lot higher before we know how it ends.
No you don't (regret it).
You were shit-scared to touch it because in your heart you KNOW it's a trap and not the real dip. $100 is coming, shortly after $140, shortly after $500, probably within 30 days.
A real dip is MORE atoms for LESS work-hours / dollars - gold & silver for example, but could be morphine or power-tools, batteries or perhaps gallons of fuel, anything of physical value to be consumed yet storable for trade.
I don't need to "ponder" it with real atoms, I know when the price is down it's time to get more. They have non-monetary use which is what makes them good money WHEN you do want to trade.
Real money MUST have an atomic nucleus.
I've looked at Obamacare, and you're right, the math is hard (impossible even).
the hard math doesn't guarantee anything but excess computation time.
It offers no security to the value of a secured bitcoin: they are backed by nothing. No atoms, no legal links to goods or services, no offerings by any government or corporation.
The instant any person says "I have no use for a bitcoin" then others say it and then everyone says it and they're done.
over.
They are worth ZERO. Not ever in my life shall I part with any thing, any service of value, for bitcoin. It is unworthy of my touch.
Bitcoin has retraced most of the crash. They can manipulate gold and silver for the short term, but bitcoin seems to be a harder nut for them to crack.
Its quite obvious that bitcoin is manipulated, maybe its the most manipulated "market" out there, its just manipulated up, not down. Whenever bitcoin starts a vertical crash, someone always steps in and bids the price up again. That does not make any sense, you dont start to frantically buy when vertical crash is in progress, unless you want to defend it and manipulate the price upward. And considering less than 100 people have 40-50% of all bitcoins it would be impossible to expect anything even remotely resembling "free market price discovery".
Manipulated my ass.
fonestar, I need your help. Would you be so kind as to provide step-by-step instructions on the best method to set up a cold-storage wallet, as well as your recommendation for the best sites for buying and selling BTC.
Thanks in advance.
I got junked for requesting help...LOL! Maybe fonestar junked me for being lazy. Fuck it, I'll junk myself, too.
Didn't occur to me that you could junk yourself.
That is good for the soul
It keeps one humble. I up-arrowed your epiphany.
Then who the fuck else junked me.
Jesus Christ is there no love????
Check out electrum.org. It really is idiot proof. Not saying youre an idiot here.
Electrum is simple to set up however..
1) is your computer secure enough to store private keys?
2) do you know how to completely delete electrum files and wipe that portion of your hard drive once you have your electrum cold wallet set up?
If the answer to those is no...
then use your computer to set up an electrum cold storage wallet, but dont use it for your big money. Set that wallet up on a secure computer.
For the advanced user I suggest using trucrypt to completely encrypt your hard drive, or create an ecrypted partition to store your wallet file in.
Also I suggest you learn about what makes a strong password. A light reading should get you that answer in less than 30 minutes.
For God's sake don't use an electrum brain wallet with a simple password. The private keys for simple passwords have all been pre-generated, and as soon as you put bitcoin in one of them, it will be stolen. If you don't know the difference between a simple and complex password, don't use a brain wallet at all.
Hint: Tr0ub@dor!123 is a simple password.
You're saying that my old standby "pw4mick" is a bad idea?
Should I go to "pw5mick" ?
Cold storage tips:
1. Have a computer/laptop you keep only for sending/receiving bitcoins. Disconnect it from the internet when not in use.
2. Print out the private keys from your wallet and store it in safe place (the Armory client makes getting these keys very simple).
3. Back up your wallet file, encrypted with a long password to a cloud service of your choice.
I don't use exchanges, but:
* Coinbase is great if you're not day trading BTC. They buy and sell BTC and are a legit company based out of San Francisco with a good reputation.
* If you don't want money coming into and out of your bank account directly, localbitcoins. I've sold to a few people in person with cash transactions using localbitcoins as the escrow. Very slick once you grasp how it works.
Thanks, Saro.
LOL, storing wallet in the cloud.
Can be taken down at any time without notice. You'll never see it coming.
Plus even if you encrypt it before sending one must ask: what is your operating system?
Browser? What encryption are you using? You SURE it's safe? If it's not something like gpg you're probably screwed. if it's win-doze you are 100% screwed.
May as well hang your money out your pocket in crack-alley for the meth-heads to see.
Oh wait, you don't have money anymore - you have bitconz.
Is it manipulation, or one of the most high pressure spigots for hyperinflation? The art market is screaming, the diamond market is screaming. Bitcoin's rise could just as easily be attributed to the Triffin Paradox as any of the common refrains we all hear lately. In a inflationary environment, it's hard to understand true value of anything. Anything scarce is all bought up. Bitcoin is scarce, and is viewed by tech savvy people as a modern day swiss franc or diamonds. Bitcoins go great with a gold and silver portfolio.
That's like saying pocket-lint, or worse, selfies of yourself HOLDING pocket-lint go great with a gold & silver portfolio.
Only 1 thing goes good with a gold & silver portfolio: more gold & silver.
There is something else that follows that pattern--real estate prices in the new world. The first settlers were granted huge tracts of land, as in millions of acres. Later settlers got thousands, then hundreds, then dozens. Infrastructure was created, trade routes crafted, more and more people came seeking freedom, which was granted by the limited government of the US at the time. Indeed, this process continued for so long that people began to say "real estate only goes up", ignorant of WHY it went up.
Similarly, bitcoin will continue to rise as more and more people choose to turn their backs on the financial system. More infrastructure will come, and more people will see the benefit and do the same.
It really astounds me that people think that more people coming into a market of strictly limited supply will do anything other than drive the price up. All you have to do is ask yourself: "Is use of the bitcoin system preferable to use of the financial system?" Then ask yourself whether you think others will come to the same conclusion. If you think they will, then it is a foregone conclusion.
Much like the US in the late 1800's, we have a jurisdiction where freedom is paramount, transparency is assured, and fractional reserve lending is impossible, but unlike the US of that time, those features are set in stone and can not be revoked at a later time by some group of politicians.
Also, stop lying. its 500 people with 20% of bitcoins, not 100 with "40-50%". Those are the early adopters who got the equivilent of millions of acres.
The thing is that there is no limited supply. Bitcoin is open source and any entity can make its own competing version. Yes, BTC currently has first mover advantage and network effects, but a deep pocket competitor such as Walmart or Exxon could come into the market at anytime. One of the problems with BTC is that it is not widely accepted for a multitude of goods and services that consumers want. Walmart has many of these things. Alternatively, if people could buy gasoline with a bitcoin competitor, that could get people to rapidly adopt it. Bitcoin has other flaws as well, and it's good to be aware of them so that you know what you own.
Any country can create a fiat currency, that doesn't mean that the currency of a country with a sane monetary policy (of which there are now none, btw) would become worthless.
Please, please, PLEASE read up on Free Banking. That is the analogy to cryptocurrencies, with the difference that bitcoin can't be wrecked by bad bank policy since its policy is set in stone and can't be changed.
Um this is incorrect:
Specifically there is absolutely nothing about Bitcoin which prevents fractional reserve lending.
Sorry, but you are wrong. A bitcoin can only exist in one wallet at a time. If you deposit it somewhere, such that it is no longer in your wallet, then it is implicitly a loan. A regular loan, not a fractional reserve loan. And of course the idea of creating bitcoins out of thin air to lend such that they take in one bitcoin in deposits and lend out ten or fifty is right out.
You are wrong.
An ounce of gold can't co-exist in 2 locations, the same atoms, yet it was fractionally reserved by TOKENS, certificates, and btc all are certificates.
You can always make more certificates of anything so long as greater fools will buy them. They will. How do you think they got buying bitcon in the first place? Only a fool would take paper in place of silver atoms, just think of the fool it takes to get electrons in place of paper in place of real useful atoms of gold & silver.
"It really astounds me that people think that more people coming into a market of strictly limited supply will do anything other than drive the price up. All you have to do is ask yourself: "
it really astounds me you think more people are entering the market.
I think those who are in are looking for fiat bag-holders, to get fiat & run with the money, what they know to be real money, and never return. Ponzification.
Then it's over.
"Is use of the bitcoin system preferable to use of the financial system?"
Absolutely not. The current system with all the fraud, theft, force involved is much more stable & much less dangerous to my income, my savings, my wages, etc.
@InspectorBird
Seal Troll Rating: 0
Issues: Confuses an open and freely traded market with a manipulated one, perhaps from never seeing real prices actually decline, as has been the case with every equity issue since the Federal Reserve has been floating everything on top of a large $85 Billion-a-month geyser of "liquidity".
Also makes the mistake of implying that the pareto distribution, or "power law" doesn't apply to overall bitcoin distribution among the global population. Large balances do not manipulators make, as most of these are concentrated for the sake of commerce or transactions from trading. The anonymity of the blockchain also precludes proving any of the "manipulation" points, so it is a moot argument.
Bitcoin trades with far more volatility and price discovery than any other thing on this planet. That's because you're watching a currency-hybrid-payment-system come to life. Nobody has done this before, so its is natural you'd confuse it with other things that don't fit the variables completely.
troll rating: +1 billion
there is no anonymity in the blockchain. The packets + blockchain indicate precisely who, when, how much, at all times.
Large balances DO manipulators make.
That's the essence of all resources, all money, all the time, for eternity.
To deny this is to state the moon is made of cotton-candy and gravity is sideways.
100% right +1
The crash (and more specifically how it was structured) was pretty clearly manipulation, but unlike gold and silver, they actually have to buy bitcoin to manipulate it (no naked shorts available.) They may have to settle for inducing volatility, but even that works against them if each crash is followed by a bounce -- that'll attract short-term traders like shit does flies.
I think if bitcoin were actually controlled by "them," we wouldn't see measures like this, just like if the NSA was all powerful, they would't be resorting to cheap tricks to steal unencrypted data.
I think all of this points to cracks appearing in their ability to control. Tiny hairline cracks, but they're there.
Hypothesis: if a market can be manipulated, it will be manipulated in both directions so that double the profits can be had.
"that'll attract short-term traders like shit does flies."
and that will destroy the currency.
Dollars are money to people because they NEED them not for short-term trades. For bank accounts, wages & taxes.
Bitcon is the opposite: useless. Unneeded. Unhelpful. Just a ponzi-chase.
What I'm seeing now is precisely what I'd be expecting from upper-level manipulation by government agencies.
Why you aren't expecting the same I don't know.
I see their control fortified, not weakened, by btc.
Twitter replaced Facebook replaced MySpace replaced Friendster...etc.
What do you do with your BitCoins when they are made obsolete?
The analogy doesn't really work. Twitter and Myspace were centralized applications for profit. All the users of Bitcoin are basically part owners, but that analogy breaks down as well. Bitcoin is more like Linux, where Myspace and Twitter are like OS2 Warp and Microsoft Windows.
You're assuming all future cryptocurrencies will be an improved version of BitCoin. That simply will not be the case.
Not really. We had Windows 98, Windows ME (remember that?!) Red Hat, NSA designed Linux, etc. The market will select what works. Right now, Bitcoin is pretty useful if you're in a country about to go under capital controls and you can't get gold bullion.
Doesn't "right now" = "highly speculative?"
Yea, it's all speculative. It's fucking hyperinflation! Art, Gold, Silver, Diamonds, etc are all going vertical (gold will catch up once the manipulation breaks).
Investing in Gold, as one of the most prudent stores of value is still speculation, though any indication from history shows it's a pretty sure bet in this environment. Bitcoin's biggest value is in it's transactional fuction anyway, not necessarily a store of value. Though we could make fair bets that in such an environment, anything scarce will appreciate, and bitcoin has the possibility of being at a multiple of others.
That's just it. When the hyperinflation finally settles, the currency WILL be replaced, yet you can end up with art, gold, silver, and diamonds. Or Bitcoins. All ponzi schemes are fun in the beginning. It's the ending that hurts.
I know you're kind of new, but you should really have a harder grasp on monetary theory if you're going to start calling things ponzis. It just sounds ignorant.
Read this and get back to me this afternoon:
http://mises.org/daily/3204
I see, you've read Mises, so your interpretation of honest money is one where you can extract huge value from your initial investment in a very short period of time? Aren't many people losing the value of their investment on the other side of that equation? Doesn't it require more new investors to maintain value, once initial investors have cashed out at a profit? Isn't that the very definition of a ponzi scheme? Please enlighten us.
BitCoin's transactional function is inherently unstable. When anyone extracts more value than they put into it, someone else MUST lose value. That's like replacing ATMs with slot machines.
You're making a huge mistake by misinterpreting Mises. Private money does not necessarily equate to honest money.
Unless what you're saying is "it's not a ponzi 'cause we're making money right now."
Aparrently you didn't read the linked paper, because it's from HAYEK not Mises!
Let's let F.A. Hayek provide the smackdown:
"My conviction is that the hope of returning to the kind of gold standard system which has worked fairly well over a long period is absolutely vain... I am afraid, all those Keynesian economists who have been trained in the last thirty years, will argue that it is more important to increase the quantity of money than to maintain the gold standard.
I have said that it is an erroneous belief that the value of gold or any metallic basis determines directly the value of the money. The gold standard is a mechanism which was intended and for a long time did successfully force governments to control the quantity of the money in an appropriate manner so as to keep its value equal with that of gold. But there are many historical instances which prove that it is certainly possible, if it is in the self-interest of the issuer, to control the quantity even of a token money in such a manner as to keep its value constant."
he goes on to discuss his premise for the future: "I have as a result of throwing out this suggestion at the Lausanne Conference worked out the idea in fairly great detail in a little book which came out a year ago, called Denationalisation of Money."
The interesting fact is that what I have called the monopoly of government of issuing money has not only deprived us of good money but has also deprived us of the only process by which we can find out what would be good money. We do not even quite know what exact qualities we want because in the two thousand years in which we have used coins and other money, we have never been allowed to experiment with it, we have never been given a chance to find out what the best kind of money would be...
It is therefore now not merely a question of giving us better money, under which the market system will function infinitely better than it has ever done before, but of warding off the gradual decline into a totalitarian, planned system, which will, at least in this country, not come because anybody wants to introduce it, but will come step by step in an effort to suppress the effects of the inflation which is going on...
As a result of my publication I have received from all kinds of surprising quarters letters from small banking houses, telling me that they are trying to issue gold accounts or silver accounts, and that there is a considerable interest for these. I am afraid they will have to go further, for the reasons I have sketched in the beginning. In the course of such a revolution of our monetary system, the values of the precious metals, including the value of gold, are going to fluctuate a great deal, mostly upwards, and therefore those of you who are interested in it from an investor's point of view need not fear. But those of you who are mainly interested in a good monetary system must hope that in the not too distant future we shall find generally applied another system of control over the monetary circulation, other than the redeemability in gold. The public will have to learn to select among a variety of monies, and to choose those which are good." - F.A. Hayek
ZH should really post this paper as an article, it would be useful to pull everyone to the task at hand.
Apparently you didn't learn to spell "Aparrently." Although that makes no difference in this case, you are using apples to try and prove the existence and validity of oranges.
My critique is of BitCoin, not of Hayek or Mises. Your linked paper does nothing to reinforce any implied value of BitCoin. And you still haven't addressed any of the points that were made.
Your implied argument from the paper above appears to be in support of cryptocurrencies. No one is saying any different, only that BitCoin is NOT honest money.
Although, I hear Bernie Madoff is working on a new cryptocurrency from his prison cell. Yes, let the people learn and try that one too.
Are you shitting me?!? This whole comment thread is full of people arguing that cryptocurrencies are useless and valueless. That's everybody's beef with it. Isn't that why you're arguing with me in the first place?
I'm not saying it's the same as gold and silver. It certainly is not. No comparison.
Software has value and you can't touch it. It's a multibillion dollar industry. Value is whatever the usefulness of the code is, it's the same here. You did read where I said bitcoin is primarily most useful as a transactional currency? It is what Hayek called "token money"
As far as the speculation, yes, it has risks if something better displaces it, and I certainly wouldn't put my life savings in it, but I doubt it's a bubble...just yet. Once the books start coming out on how to become rich on cryptocurrencies, and the news is going on about how it is the new economy, when everyone all laughs at you when you say it's a bubble, it's probably time to go. Right now the reverse is true.
That is the problem everyone on ZH is having. The confusion is that many people assume that a rejection of BitCoin is an automatic rejection of cryptocurrencies. It is not. Most people that reject BitCoin understand the value of cryptocurrencies. I personally believe that cryptocurrencies ARE the wave of the future. But it will be a more organic implementation. Nevertheless, BitCoin is not an honest attempt at an honest currency. Yet people continue to hype it without understanding it.
no, no , no.
GRID currencies are OF NO USE.
Not for the long haul.
if I wanted a grid currency I'd use dollars, as they are the law, or pgp-signed vouchers, as pgp is quicker & more secure than bitcoin (gnugp / gpg now, actually).
Bitcoin software has NO value. None.
The sources.list = apt-keys and repository IP addresses / DNS names are more value to me for my Linux OS.
I can't upgrade, repair or change my software using bitcoins. btc = HotPotatah PonziCoin
Offshore bank accounts hold some $30 trillion. If even one percent of that flows to what is arguably the best offshore bank yet, we are looking at $25k/BTC.
but these are the people whose money is already safely moved, they don't need btc.
They also don't need to worry about TPTB, they ARE TPTB.
No need for btc.
NSA did not design Linux.
Linux is composed by community-based projects fully open.
NSA contributes to SELinux which is not every variation. None of that code is in my Ubuntu 12.04 Linux Mint 13/Maya for example.
Some packages are binary only, such as Adobe Flash or ATI's video card drivers (now AMD).
Many of the existing current ones already ARE copied from the open-source code...although arguably, they are not neccessarily improvements per se.
It makes me laugh when all those naive bitbugs say that bitcoin is not centralized... its very centralized, very few people own most of the "market".... distributed and uncentralized my ass.
For those who doubt you: http://eprint.iacr.org/2012/584.pdf
"Bitbugs"!
LOL!!!
I think you have just 'coined' a new word!
(Now how did I not think of that?)
Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of centralization:
http://www.michaelnielsen.org/ddi/how-the-bitcoin-protocol-actually-works/
No, you dont get the meaning. I dont care if you require one computer or a network with million computers to run a system. As long as very few own most of the "market" the system is centralized and they can do whatever they desire, they OWN you in your little bitcoin world, you are their bitch. You are even lower than filthy whore and they are your masters. Dont fool yourself, the fact that it requires a network of computers does not make it somehow honest system, if the distribution of bitcoins is sooooo out of whack.
Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves.
Continuing the analogy - is bitcoin the money of metrosexual hipster nerds?
Concentration is not centralization. So you either don't understand how Bitcoin works or don't understand centralization. You can have concentration in holders of Bitcoin, or concentration in the miners, but it doesn't make a shit bit of difference. You still can't change the protocol, you can only try to cheat (double spend, make counterfeit bitcoins) but will be soon found out (minutes - hours) and the fraudulent transactions reversed. To try to re-architect the protocol, you have to get everyone holding bitcoin to willingly convert to your new fucked up protocol. It just doesn't work.
concentration is ALWAYS centralization.
That's how it is made.
@InspectorBird
Seal Troll Dissection: Lacks the sophistication to see the difference between the number of users on the Bitcoin network, and some of the higher-value balances contained in the blockchain. Consensus is via the client software, which must be installed manually by every user on the network. This consensus is immune to the effects of how many Bitcoins a given user has.
Implication that large account holders make everyone their "bitch" is hilarious, as any attempt to use large balances on exchanges would have an opposite effect, which would cause the balance to be distributed to others that would eagerly take their portion of.
This also neglects the fact that exchanges are a temporary phase on the road to total economic and financial domination, they are merely the conduits through which bad money flows to become good, and in doing so, distributes bitcoin far and wide throughout the globe.
doublepost
perhaps you don't.
The exchange serves & the bag-holder-finders are the TOTAL bitcoin network with a few bagholders along the way.
The reset of the planet refuses to partake.
de facto CENTRALIZED. It sure as hell isn't distributed around the planet without a pattern.
Bitcoin is an information protocol that is currently working. Not a whimsical social media site that depends on the current tastes of new generations of teenagers. Protocols have a tendency to stick around for quite a while especially when they are adaptable. We are still using the same TCP/IP to make these posts that people were using 30 years ago albeit with a few enhancements along the way.
Doesn't the information protocol work equally well with LiteCoin, JPMCoin, UniCoin, FutureCoin, etc.?
Yes, no and maybe...
But Bitcoin is far more established, accepted, and already has legs under it. That in itself is part of it's "intrinsic value" that so many haters wish to ignore.
"Far more accepted" just means I'm doing it 'cause everyone else is doing it. That never really ends well.
Through millenia Gold was far more accepted as money than lead or horse turds and that ended pretty well for gold.
"...Gold was far more accepted as money... "
...so were tulips, Assignats, shares in South Seas Company, certain investments in stamps in the 1920s, and portfolios with Madoff & Co. There's a reason why it ended well for gold.
No, it doesn't "just" mean that. But I suspect you know that, but you enjoy being contrary more than you enjoy being thoughtful.
Baa-aa-aaa-aaaaa humbug!
what could go wrong?
intrinsic value is a physical thing made from properties of atoms, chemical bonds, mass & interaction with living systems and tools of humans.
Bitcoin is none of those things. Intrinsic value is negative. It has no benefit (0) and a massive exponentially increasing cost (equipment, power) to make new ('mining') and to use the ledger (transactions).
Sure it does, I just made LCP/LP my new internet protocol that is exactly like TCP/IP except I "made" it, want to use it with me and my 2 friends? It's a public ledger, yes other people can present their own but why would anyone care when there is already a working one? I can start printing my own paper currency too but I don't think the teller at the grocery store is going to accept it.
http://i.imgur.com/O5SdUUu.jpg
As for JPMCoin, I'm sure it will be fee free with no restrictions right? Or maybe not.
If they wanted to capture the market and destroy Bitcoin in 2 seconds, yes it would be free of fees. Once the opponents are dead, the fees would kick in.
JPM or similar giants such as Walmart or even Amazon have resources that would enable them to get an immediate base in any virtual currency they would roll out. Bitcoin is actually doing the dirty work of getting people familiarized with the concept. It will then be subverted and BTC will go the way of Napster, Limewire etc..
Count on it.
@mad mohel
Seal Troll Rating: 0
Issues: Invokes the familiar omnipotent-all-powerful government meme, which suggests that powerful forces lie in wait to usurp the very thing that could possibly turn the tide against them. While entertaining to those that like tinfoil as a fashion statement, it is hardly in line with most observable reality.
Example: Canada tried their "Mint Chip", a government endorsed fail-o-coin wrapped into a chip-and-pin card. It has been quietly swept under the rug, as interest was abysmal. For sure others will follow, lured by the network power that Bitcoin represents, and the low fee structure seeming to be giving too much away.
Slight problem, having a first-mover advantage is huge, and they'll all struggle to become at best, second fiddle to Bitcoin's massive strides in the global payment space. Not to mention its status as store-of-wealth for those that aren't afraid of technology.
troll rating +100
fail rating +10,000
"which suggests that powerful forces lie in wait to usurp the very thing that could possibly turn the tide against them."
that's the ONLY thing they do.
they're doing it now.
Bitcoin prices are being supported now by bank issued credit. Individual persons don't have the money to support it as it's been moving at the rate it moves.
Certainly most individuals don't see drops of -50% and say "time to buy in!" and those who do follow at +100% and buy in and see the -50% are OUT, they don't have the money to do it again, same with all markets.
You're a tool. You've been fooled.
I'm not afraid of technology, I'm a computer scientist.
btc is inferior to gpg and gpg signed messages can be vouchers, unique, for any value, encrypted unbreakably in content, while actual goods, gold/silver food/oil, tools/medicine can be actual in-hand money (they are and I will hold them as such).
btc is not a network. it is not money. it is a ponzi-scam and you fell for it.
BTC cheerleaders here are looking for bag-holders.
You're going to find out very fast that HotPOtatah Coin is only passing between you bagholders, an ever-shrinking circle, and that's when it will drop to 0.
No corporation will be allowed to release an unrestricted transaction platform due to all the cries out against terrorists and drug dealers and child abusers. That's why bitcoin was released anonymously and has no central point to attack. You mention it being free of fees but not it being free of restrictions and this is what really matters most. Paypal was created with the same intention of freedom that bitcoin has, but being a corporate entity that is easy to put pressure on, look where they are now.
They lack the network behind Bitcoin
they're all using the same physical network - which is the only actual network.
Careful... can't use the N word or in this case its equivalent the O word.
Welcome to the ZH fonestar network...
ZHF...
@Bay of Pigs
I see akak has been busy with "value added conversation" apprentices. Let us know when your next "act" is due.
Distraction from what? pretty ambigous ?
BTC pushing 1050 on Gox, you have to laugh at the BTC haters most of which have probably never even used the Bitcoin protocol.
and btc just 660 a few days before. And near 1300 a few days before that.
that's a total disaster.
Soon it will be 400 then 800 then 200 then 10,000 then 10.
That's like eating razorblades and calling it cotton candy.
You're on peyoteCoin.
I have often wondered if these "cryptocurrencies" are nothing more than a way to get people to be more accepting of a cashless world.
It would be the most diabolical way of doing it.
Much like why go through the trouble of giving the mark of the beast, when people are happy to receive an Obamaphone, or stand in line for an iPhone.
Well played.
The banks wanted a cashless world so that all transactions would have to go through an intermediary and once they had a monopoly on the transactional infrastructure they would have then be free to charge for every trasnaction, this was IMO there long term goal.
Unforuanelty for the banks we are going to move towards the cashless society but with a protocol which allows for disientermediation and next to no charges.
Bitcoin is a thing of absolute beauty that will hopefully free humans from generations of financial and political repression.
yes, the blind haters here don't seem to understand that of course the gov would love to have control of something like bitcoin but are stuck pondering it since they do like the fact that most actions are tracable but don't like it since they can't control the increase in supply.... things like Liberty Reserve were closed systems so they blew that up.. also, they will go after big illegal targets like CP and SR
but most of all, they know they probably won't be able to make something as elegant as bitcoin right now so best to sit back and take notes.. sure JPMorgan might come and slam the hammer on it with the full force of swat teams and drones blowing up miners.. but we have a lot of trading and profit taking before then and this is a trading site right?? right???????????
Wrong the underlying technology is what is important not the particular coin. It is the system that is important not team coin this or team coin that. Of course the big boys are going to eventually jump in and compete by using their size to muscle everyone out of the market but they can't corner the technology itself. Only try to pervert what it represents. If I was the FED I'd see bitcoin and the whole coin trading market as positive since by letting it grow enough they have an outlet to offload their toxic turds on their books into a brand new market that didn't exist and with no regulation. Let the fucking fun and games begin see if you can compete against that.
are you dense? I mine coins and trade on the side.. please let them jump in and buy them all up. I get to print to them for a change
they already control it.
Fools put btc on exchange server grids for fiat & made "markets", even with silly charts, pricing btc in various fiats.
Those fiats which can be legally produced at any rate, any amount, by ONE central party only, while all others to go prison for doing so.j
Fool, you handed them the keys to the car. They're driving now.
Bitcoin does not allow disintermediation. I am afraid you are deluded.
The Bitcoin protocol is designed to be centralised. The blockchain is now at 12 Gb and is growing exponentially at 10% - 17% per month. Which mean it is doubling in size every 4-7 months.
Chart here for you.
Within a short period only the largest most centralised systems will be capable of processing blockchain transactions due to the size, and as the transaction rate increases as well, the blockchain will have to be centralised to reduce the transaction latency. Eventually the scalability limitations will mean that Bitcoin transactions simply don't take place on the blockchain at all, and the blockchain will have to be bypassed entirely.
There are organisations that have the kind of hardware required to handle the kinds of processing which the blockchain requires and will require in the very near future. They are called banks. They will be happy to step in and take over I am sure.
I'm going to guess (I am not a coder) that a 12 GB blockchain is NOT too fearsome for the future of BTC. A guy I know has it all (the blockchain), and he is not the least perturbed.
I use 64 GB flash drives to carry my stuff around (uh, did I just reveal an ignorance of 64 GB on a flash-drive vs. 12 GB size of the blockchain?).
Apologies for ignorance, I am learning as I go. And most of my learning, directly or indirectly has come from Zero Hedge.
I think you missed the words "exponential" and "doubling period" of 4 months as well as the chart.
i.e. 4-7 months from now, the blockchain will be 24Gb. 8-14 months it will be 48Gb, 16 - 28 months it will be 96Gb. Now that as such isn't a problem, big IT systems are totally capable of handling that sort of size no problem, they go much much bigger than that.
You try downloading 96Gb over your DSL connection though, and keeping up with the transactions as the rates increase.
So. To make it explicit.
Bitcoin is no longer peer to peer. It is now centralised. The trust model is now broken because you have to trust a 3rd party to perform the transactions for you, in exactly the same way a bank does today. Or, put another way. Bitcoin fails as advertised and supposedly designed, or was in fact designed by bankers for bankers and solves nothing which is broken about our current monetary system.
It's an academic toy, not a currency.
p.s. I have 10 Euros (Or to make it more humorous, 100 trillion Zimbabwe dollars) which says your friend will give up on hosting the complete blockchain less than 12 months from now, or say by 1/1/2015.
How dare you expose my ignorance! No re your bet, I always lose money on those kinds of bets...
/etc.
Thank you for the info.
The very issue you bring up is being dealt with in other alt coins and systems being forked off the open source. Bitcoin may go but the underlying technology and the idea of decentralized blockchain and ledger isn't going anywhere anytime soon. If JPM is jumping into the game that much is considered proven in the big boys eyes and once one jumps in.........
You keep thinking it all about bitcoin or whatevercoin it is a whole fucking system and will evolve and change to meet problems as they arise if it is to be a long term success bitcoin or whatevercoin down the road.
thank you for what for me has been a most insightful posting about bitcoin.
and ty for the link.
How many times will you keep posting this? Do you not read threads after they are a few hours old? I guess I can't blame you with all the trash polluting the comments. The blockchain size is not a real issue. There are some real issues with bitcoin to be concerned about and the blockhain size is not one of them. Hard drives aren't getting smaller, and the current chain has no compression applied to it yet. How well do you think a list of mostly the same addresses will compress? I'm thinking very well. Not to mention there is no need to know the entire expanded history of a coin, only it's current owner and the hash of the historical chain. If you are so set on this being a real issue I can assure you that you have gone over your head technically as it just simply isn't.
The blockchain currently grows linearly as this is the way it is coded, it is not even possible for it to grow exponentially. BTW here is the actual logarithmic chart you are looking for. It doesn't do you much good to look at a super zoomed in chart in linear scale. We won't even be at 100GB a year from now. My 5 year old desktop computer has 3 2TB hard drives in it. I think we are all going to be okay.
https://blockchain.info/charts/blocks-size?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=1&address=
and you're wrong.
Hashes & encrypted streams aren't compressible at all.
I'll give you a greenie for actually posting about something that might be a real problem.
I will rebut by suggesting that with an exponentially increasing blockchain size, we will see transfer fees go up, decreasing the number of transactions. There is also, of course, the fact that things generally don't rise exponentially forever. The question is, will it become unmanageable before it reaches full penetration? At that point, growth will slow to become linear.
Note that on the higher end of your exponential growth rate, in three years, the blockchain will be 3.5 Tb, which still isn't that much. In six years it will be approaching a Pb, which is where we would start seeing problems if HD space stopped getting cheaper. That's a long time in bitcoin years. Enough time to reach full adoption, even.
@css1971
Dissection: The protocol was not designed to be centralized. The effect you are naming, which is the increasing storage and networking portions of the blockchain, will not be as burdensome as indicated. There are already plans to enable pruning/compression of the blockchain to sufficient height - ie., transactions so far "buried" by successive confirmation as to be paleozoic if they were strata in the earth's timeline.
There are other strategies, which are mistakenly thought of as centralizing, as they've been referred to as "supernodes". There is no special requirement other than the bare minimum to run the network. You may be familiar with this concept, its the same that serves up content on the world wide web, enables cloud services, and does what protocols should do, enable redundancy and ensure viability of the blockchain.
Between the supernodes and the slimmed down clients on the edges, the network will be free to grow as it already has, organically and without any central-directed restraints. As for institutions stepping in to provide their "services" to the Bitcoin network, it remains to be seen that the very corrupt participants of the conventional financial system have the ability to adapt in this manner. They are more likely to try to co-opt it, and when that fails, fight it until their demise.
cloud services are of the biggest most expensive companies and servers only.
I think you just argued FOR his point, not against it.
yup. You nailed it 100%.
bitcoin is none of those things.
It's as simple as stopping every packet that looks like bitcoin transactions & billing them to let them go through - at any ISP, any trunk, anywhere by any government, and to have the trunks owned by the money-printing law-evading banks so they become full owners of the true physical network bitcoin must use.
duplicate.
If governments were to design a virtual currency (they have: the SDR) it would have the following traits:
a) It would be under a central authority behind the guise of neutrality (like the IMF)
b) It would not be limited in quantity, or would include a mechanism to increase the quantity. Central bankers are terrified of deflationary pressure and bitcoin has a deflationary bias
For these reasons of logic, we can conclude it's not the work of government because it would not be in their interest. It would be an act of suicide for them to build something like bitcoin
nope.
Government need only have the fiat printing combined with fiat exchange servers for cryptocurrencies to have 100% control.
You fell for it.
The Chase Is On: JPMorgan Chase Building Bitcoin-Killer
After years of allegations about involvement in Gold and Silver manipulation JPMorgan is chasing Bitcoin. So much is for Bitcoin "Gold 2.0" "Limited supply" - you can chose already from 43 listed crypto-currencies and now more are to come. After China and South Korea have banned Bitcoin from Financial Institutions the race is on among the Central Banks to outlaw it. Banksters are always ready to help here.JPMorgan involvement in the "Bitcoin-Killer" is very interesting in light of recent reports from Turd Ferguson that for the long time JPMorgan is Net Long Gold and will stand to benefit from the Gold price going higher this time. Gold is spiking up this morning to $1260 and US Dollar is very close to the crucial 80.00 level - the end of 2013 will be very interesting to say at least.
http://sufiy.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-chase-is-on-jpmorgan-chase-build...
It will be stillborn
cue ZH stackers cheering on the Morgue
@Sufiy
Seal Troll Rating: -1
Subject assumes that banks understand Bitcoin, and are able of constructing a system that would mimic Bitcoin, even if that main premise would conflict with their primary business. This would be similar to someone say, like Apple, producing an Android handset in addition to their primary line. It would make zero sense.
Subject also assumes that China and South Korea will ban bitcoin, when it is clear that the exact opposite has happened. China has ring-fenced Bitcoin in the same way the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong has, and the result has been a booming urban center with some of the best internet connectivity on the planet. South Korea is similarly wired and has the ability to understand the technical details of Bitcoin's internal structure. No ban has occurred, and none will likely occur.
Subject then tries to tie in the lie of eventual banning to the price of Gold, in a twisted leap of logic that makes no sense to a rational investor. It is then concluded with an obvious self-promoting plug, proving once again that just about anyone can have a blog, and write about anything. The irony being that someone like this is using the open and free protocols of TCP/IP and web technologies to disparage another protocol that encapsulates a new kind of monetary value.
Bronzed cow patties as sold at Midwest truck stops are more popular than Obama care.
The problem that I have with Bitcoin is that is too "volatile." There are too many people buying it on hope motivated by fear, and who think that algorithm refers to Al Gore's dancing ability.
More exidence that it is a mainstream product created by bankers and should not be trusted. If it was not created by the mainstream then we would never have heard about it. The mainstream would have shunned it and blocked publicity for it.
This is kind of misleading though. Gogle Trends aren't volume of searches, they are % value, with 100% being the peak time for that search. So Bitcoin is peaking while Obamacare is fading, yes, but the volume of Obamacare might be way higher.
This is kind of misleading though. Gogle Trends aren't volume of searches, they are % value, with 100% being the peak time for that search. So Bitcoin is peaking while Obamacare is fading, yes, but the volume of Obamacare might be way higher.
told ya, there will be a lot of "bitcoin talk", in pauses of "taper talk" everywhere - cnn, cnbc, bloomberg, brochures distributed ha ha ha powerz are betting on the stupidest part of population ha ha ha
saddest part about betting on Stupid(tm) - they're winning.
ney fonestar: if I pay for some bitcoins, where does that money go? whose/which account?
ney fonestar: if I pay for some bitcoins, where does that money go? whose/which account?
Maybe the sellers account, eh?
This what happens when you take out a high deductible low premium affordable insurance plan in this case a 4 bullet deductible plan from E-surance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=127uqUEl96s
throw money at the computer IT-people
like the planes full of notes flown to iraq and afghanistan.
and then follow the bait
a friend studied the blockchain explorer.
he said 50% of coins end up at an address registered a few miles ashore kamerun
The thing I can't understand about all you Bitcoin trashers:
Suppose the Western currency regime crashed tomorrow, and everyone runs back to gold. Do you really want some nationstate controlling international commerce like the US does with SWIFT??? Bitcoin is the perfect tool for an international transactional currency so your gold doesn't need to cross the oceans, and the transaction cost is far cheaper (including potential for gold/bitcoin arbitrage, transaction costs, shipping costs, security fees, etc).
If you think the western monetary cartels might collapse, and want to live in some condition other than abject poverty or isolation from global markets, or live under a new bullion market cartel, you should be supporting the hell out of bitcoin. Fuck!
I think that's about right. My recent thesis is that BTC is a service -- providing the ability to perform anonymous transactions.
That does not make it obvious what one BTC should actually be worth. Or why it should be worth more than any other similar service.
And there's a tremendous amount of confusion around it. Just because it's called a cryptocurrency by techies doesn't mean that it actually is a currency, or money, or a store of value.
And the abrasive cheerleading of one-trick ponies like Fonestar doesn't help.
MillionFonerBonus_ and others fail to explain how a distributed ledger is anonymous, or how snooping network traffic is defeated for traffic analysis (location, end-points).
Even TOR hasn't been able to stop this.
actually no, the networks are all controlled by the corporations merged to those nation-state powers so the only secure non-national transfer will be gold & silver delivered physically, as in, you carry it by boat or small plane yourself.
Whatever's on undersea cables, satellite, is theirs, not yours. Transactions can be stopped, intercepted, locations found, etc.,
but not with gold & silver bar/coin in hand delivered personally.
For most of us sending money quickly across oceans is negative, not positive, to be avoided, and has no need at all.
I have no need for it. My money goes where I go because it shouldn't be anywhere else.
to me bitcoin is bad for this list of reasons:
#1 fiat exchange grid. Clearly those who can print money can control bitcoin using this method & I think I see it now. Run. I want none of them.
#2 grid required. I require money that is immune to total loss of internet, cell phone networks, computers & electricity permanently. 99.99% of my transactions are off-grid
#3 secret location required. I require money that under no circumstances can give away my location when I use it. Bitcoin is the opposite: the networks upon which bitcoin is used (and it can't be used as paper: transactions can't be verified to the distributed ledger) give away location. Can't be avoided so I can't use it
Solve that.
"AIDs now moar popular than LeechCare (TM)."
can you say rehypothecation?
I read probably the top third of this thread.
It must be the holiday season. Everyone is being sweet to each other.
I am going to puke.
What happened to fight club? You guys are hugging each other like that big guy with man tits.
I can hardly wait for bitcoin futures trading. you know its coming which is why i asked "can you say rehypothecation?"
You didnt own that wallet.
If you like your wallet, you can keep your wallet.
because phonestar and his bitdouche's have been beat down by this JPM involvement they realize that they are fucked. Go read the other thread about the story and you'll read a different story. No cheerleading. No Satoshi is a genius. No but, but, but....
Just reality. can get down and dirty with those that can no longer argue a valid point.
Eat it bitdouche's
Oh yes, we are all shivering in out boots from the re-filing of a 10 year old patent that means fuck all.
More popular than Obamacare. WTH?
30 Grit toilet paper is more popular than Obamacare.
genital warts are more popular than cancer but they are both
just distractions.
what?