Topic: 2014-02-25 You are 6% Richer Non-Gox Users bitcoin exchange is at 'turning point (Read 1549 times)

It's just an ad lib on the topic title from the link posted
Mt.Gox CEO Karpeles says bitcoin exchange is at 'turning point'

Simply put this is a turning point what type it will be is what makes it interesting

If you meant the definition of the term it means when something significant is about to happen that changes everything
Example the change from candles to kerosene to gasoline power were turning points
The Eternal September when a significant amount of users were introduced to the thing called the internet is a turning point
In more modern terms the rise of social media giants like facebook and twitter may be turning points in how we talk to one another and are a part of the greater worldwide communication system.
Possibly even the recent revelations that PRISM gave the public and the Constant campaigns for copyright law vs public use could become turning points for privacy and free and open access to information, for all people not just those that can afford it.

Basically a tipping point  is something that brings about a significant change, whether that change is for the better or for the worse is another discussion however it does lead us somewhere important into the future.

What Gox did is raise the question of if their is a such thing as too big to fail in the Bitcoin world
Whether Bailouts are even possible and if the lack of financial instruments may be a strong point or a weakness.
Will it result in stronger exchanges, will exchanges become more decentralized than centralized and what will come from this lesson as people realize this, what are the implications it could have to finance and how we handle these type of issues with a limited supply, as these type of questions are digested and interpreted upon it becomes worth asking and considering what the answer to these problems are and one that I look forward to seeing solutions being created for in the future.

can anybody explane me what exactly means 'turning point'?

First Point - This sentence could be used in everyday usage, credit is not needed especially with the citation above
I could write an abstract but it is way to short and not a concise summary of the topic
A citation note would defeat the purpose as a single sentence especially one so general to any topic is WELL into fair use.

Furthermore this is an opinion it is not a stated fact, I could say person X's opinion is this but its not necessarily relevant to the discussion.

The link to the article and the underlining separates my comments from his and is sufficient for these purposes.

Second Point - Rock Coins and Tally Sticks were not influenced that much by politics or religion

The King may have enforced the value of the tally stick system
The ancients viewed rocks as having value but this was an agreed to consensus that it is valuable not strongly politically based or religiously based.

With any currency system their is a basis in the stability of the government to attribute its value this is invariable tied to politics.
The Romans did not Build Rome in a day but they nonetheless maintained an empire that had a mintage because people perceived its value, based on the security of Rome itself.

I do agree that the full sentence from the article is: "Borrowing and lending require a trusted legal framework, separated from both politics and religion." (as cited by you citing him cough cough) is true but they are not the primary mechanism of trade.

Third Point - Legal concerns are slow to adjust to sweeping changes, it takes time for the legal rules to change and they usually are among the last things to be adjusted.

Finally - I agree with you that borrowing and lending does not need a trusted legal network.
We do this every day in transactions with other individuals and in many respects our ancestors did not have these structures.

Older societies did just fine in regards to finance and transactions, well less serfdom.
So I disagree with his point that we need these deep bond markets he was talking about immediately and that is why Bitcoin is doomed to fail.
Reputation is what matters and mutual trust, violence only makes a fiat currency valueless

If Russian Tanks are in Frankfurt then the Deutsche Mark is Worthless
Financial systems are only as valuable as the security of it as a store of value.

i guess mark holds these keys for the next 100 lawsuits agianst him 

Firstly, "Borrowing and lending require a trusted legal framework" is just lifted from the article without credit.

Secondly, the full sentence from the article is: "Borrowing and lending require a trusted legal framework, separated from both politics and religion.".  I'm not sure such a framework has ever existed.

Thirdly, even accepting the existence of such a framework, by far the most pertinent section of law is contract law.  I'm not aware of a jurisdiction with contract law that discriminates against Bitcoin.

Finally, borrowing and lending do not require a trusted legal framework (I disagree with Reuven Brenner here).  They do require trust, but reputation is the key driver of trust, not the threat of violence.

It's not that people wouldn't want to try

Reuven Brenner, Special to Financial Post

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2014/02/20/why-bitcoins-dont-add-up-to-money/

Borrowing and lending require a trusted legal framework; Bitcoins could never pass this test

However, even assuming that the Bitcoin technology specialists prevent future hacking, and merchants find the currency sufficiently liquid, Bitcoin still cannot become a “monetary standard”: A deepening bond market is necessary for achieving such status.
___

Fortunately the bitcoins cannot print themselves so there can not be a bailout by printing more bills and leveraging companies because they are too big to fail (Because they were leveraging on the leverage)
Financial Crisis and subprime mortgages are a good example of this

That said we are developing those mechanisms but they would be separate yet connected structures so its an interesting topic.

I'm just glad we're speculating between +6% and +0%.  In the fiat world, the expectation would be -6% (A Mt.Gox bailout).

It's not clear at this point whether the coins were stolen or Gox just lost the keys.  If the keys are lost, then I would expect the price of bitcoin to rise.

So I wasn't alone in that interpretation even put in disclaimers all over my post well I'm sure we will have more data later
It is a possibility but not the only possible scenario/outcome of this mess

___
There seems to be some uncertainty regarding what happened to Mt. Gox. Why would it be difficult for Mt. Gox to determine whether there had been a theft within its exchange?
Only Mt. Gox can answer that question. Mt. Gox's software was closed source, unavailable to the public for independent review and testing.
 

Nope it was there just well buried

Youl'd think. Even Scientific American missed that : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5408175

True enough I don't think they lost the private keys for a minute just thought the way the video explained it raised a bit of a flag on how some people may interpret it

Totally wrong, the 6% of BTC did not disappear. Its still in the bitcoin world, just not in the hands of the rightful owners.

Depends on what happened to that 6%. I suspect those coins have already left Gox and either were sold on other exchanges or put into long term storage. However, because the market as a whole considered those coins on Gox to be legit up until a week ago, they had been artificially dampening prices, and by much more than 6%. For example, another $10M going into the market would move prices upwards more than they would before because of Mt. Gox. I don't know what the numbers are for coins theoretically available on other exchanges, but I'm guessing none of them were that high.

oh no, he ate them 

Maybe the password protected offline stored coins were stolen. Or maybe gox just lost them but is blaming theft. Mark probably just kept them in a lunchbox in his desk or something  .

yep, thats true.

It really annoys me how Mark makes these pointless and confusing announcements that tell us nothing and could indicate either good or bad things. He should either make a proper announcement that actually give some details or information or not bother at all.

Not quite sure how you worked this out. If 6% of coins were stolen from Gox, they're still very much in circulation. If Gox lost the keys, then you'd be correct.

CNBC was talking about the closing of the exchange this one isn't about paying Gox Users
I was commenting on controlled supply at the top

If the coins are lost then there are 6% less Bitcoins in circulation each remaining unit that can be traded is worth more all things equal (ceteris paribus)
The suggestion that up to 6% of all Bitcoins are unusable presently caught my attention

"According to 2bitidiom when Mt.Gox went offline over night he was questioning what happened to 744,000 Bitcoins ... but it is a significant number since its just under 6% of the 12.4 million bitcoins in circulation"

Not sure if CNBC got that right since they were unable to confirm that
But it is an interesting number to ponder on.

Are you kidding me ? Am 6% poorer?
I'm not entirely sure how what they said has anything to do with paying Gox Users.