Gold dying, Bitcoin birthing.
i like that.
i like that.
Below $100 someone call the midwife!
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 1303. (Read 2032274 times)
Below $100 someone call the midwife!
We may well spend some time below $100, but there's no reason to expect a replay of 2011, when we rose faster, higher, and for way less reason and then people assumed Bitcoin was a goner when the bubble popped (even though it bottomed at a valuation that was still awesome for people who got in early). This time we rose slower, rose for all sorts of big reasons that remain in play, and people know a bubble pop isn't going to be the death of Bitcoin. So we aren't going nearly as low as in 2011 ($30 would be about equivalent, $50 is almost guaranteed to hold this time, if not $80). There remains a certain sense of a lack of speculative capitulation in the markets, and so we may swoop down to shake out one last batch of weak hands, so that every Feb-March 2013 short-term speculator goes sour on holding bitcoins. Then we'll be ready to go higher. Of course news is the X factor.
Who's ready for some action?
Bring it! Bitcoin is getting boring and disappointing and we need someone to breath some life into things. Up? Down? Who cares.
here comes 100
It's a start. If we do another 2011 pattern it could get down to $20-ish in a quarter or two. Then (hopefully) upwards and into the next spike. Thankfully I took advantage of the last spike to zero my USD investment so I can be more comfortable to sit on my hoard for a few years to see how things go.
Now I can choose between Gold, Silver or BTC (or property for that matter) to sell if come up short of spending money.
Who's ready for some action?
Bring it! Bitcoin is getting boring and disappointing and we need someone to breath some life into things. Up? Down? Who cares.
Thankyou for both of those articles .... they were very enlightening
dito... this is cool stuff.
Who's ready for some action?
Thankyou for both of those articles .... they were very enlightening
I find the whole "cash" thing (even "coins") idiosyncratic. Bitcoin isn't cash; it does away with the need for cash, coin, or anything actually - or even virtually - changing hands. Those are old tech, artifacts of an age when society was both too big and too low-tech to keep track of transactions in a universal ledger. Tiny communities could use a ledger system like rai stones, but for millennia the technology needed to enable a universal ledger for the global economic community was unavailable, so people never moved beyond hard objects and centralized trust systems ultimately based on them. Bitcoin is that universal ledger, enabled by recent technological innovations, obviating the need for any media of exchange at all. Calling these tickmarks in the ledger "coins" is just to make it sound familiar to people; ultimately it is a harmful distortion.
Failure to fully grasp this may result in: wondering what bitcoins are "backed by," fretting about altcoins (the world only needs one universal ledger, no "gold and silver" ledgers), losing arguments with Bitcoin skeptics, misjudging the significance (or insignificance) of BM+OT (or Ripple), and generally being a lily-livered weak hand.
Failure to fully grasp this may result in: wondering what bitcoins are "backed by," fretting about altcoins (the world only needs one universal ledger, no "gold and silver" ledgers), losing arguments with Bitcoin skeptics, misjudging the significance (or insignificance) of BM+OT (or Ripple), and generally being a lily-livered weak hand.
respected Fed economist Narayana Kocherlakota apparently agrees with you:
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/sr/sr218.pdf
Cool, I also read Bitcoin is memory a novel way to change one's persecution.
On that note gold as trade (IOU) memory dying Bitcoin birthing.
Gold dying, Bitcoin birthing.
i like that.
I find the whole "cash" thing (even "coins") idiosyncratic. Bitcoin isn't cash; it does away with the need for cash, coin, or anything actually - or even virtually - changing hands. Those are old tech, artifacts of an age when society was both too big and too low-tech to keep track of transactions in a universal ledger. Tiny communities could use a ledger system like rai stones, but for millennia the technology needed to enable a universal ledger for the global economic community was unavailable, so people never moved beyond hard objects and centralized trust systems ultimately based on them. Bitcoin is that universal ledger, enabled by recent technological innovations, obviating the need for any media of exchange at all. Calling these tickmarks in the ledger "coins" is just to make it sound familiar to people; ultimately it is a harmful distortion.
Failure to fully grasp this may result in: wondering what bitcoins are "backed by," fretting about altcoins (the world only needs one universal ledger, no "gold and silver" ledgers), losing arguments with Bitcoin skeptics, misjudging the significance (or insignificance) of BM+OT (or Ripple), and generally being a lily-livered weak hand.
Failure to fully grasp this may result in: wondering what bitcoins are "backed by," fretting about altcoins (the world only needs one universal ledger, no "gold and silver" ledgers), losing arguments with Bitcoin skeptics, misjudging the significance (or insignificance) of BM+OT (or Ripple), and generally being a lily-livered weak hand.
respected Fed economist Narayana Kocherlakota apparently agrees with you:
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/sr/sr218.pdf
Cool, I also read Bitcoin is memory a novel way to change one's persecution. *edit * oh I see it's the same idea it just took me a while to see it's origin.
On that note gold as trade (IOU) memory dying Bitcoin birthing.
I find the whole "cash" thing (even "coins") idiosyncratic. Bitcoin isn't cash; it does away with the need for cash, coin, or anything actually - or even virtually - changing hands. Those are old tech, artifacts of an age when society was both too big and too low-tech to keep track of transactions in a universal ledger. Tiny communities could use a ledger system like rai stones, but for millennia the technology needed to enable a universal ledger for the global economic community was unavailable, so people never moved beyond hard objects and centralized trust systems ultimately based on them. Bitcoin is that universal ledger, enabled by recent technological innovations, obviating the need for any media of exchange at all. Calling these tickmarks in the ledger "coins" is just to make it sound familiar to people; ultimately it is a harmful distortion.
Failure to fully grasp this may result in: wondering what bitcoins are "backed by," fretting about altcoins (the world only needs one universal ledger, no "gold and silver" ledgers), losing arguments with Bitcoin skeptics, misjudging the significance (or insignificance) of BM+OT (or Ripple), and generally being a lily-livered weak hand.
Failure to fully grasp this may result in: wondering what bitcoins are "backed by," fretting about altcoins (the world only needs one universal ledger, no "gold and silver" ledgers), losing arguments with Bitcoin skeptics, misjudging the significance (or insignificance) of BM+OT (or Ripple), and generally being a lily-livered weak hand.
respected Fed economist Narayana Kocherlakota apparently agrees with you:
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/sr/sr218.pdf
Direct Bitcoin transactions would always be available for big ticket items, a HD TV or a House or Business to Business purchases, even small web purchases.
But a layered service could practically exist on top of Bitcoin like a Credit/Debit Card for your smaller purchases, (Groceries, coffee entertainment, meals etc) and would happen much like your credit card, a trusted service provider could hold your coins securely for you and you could spend on the there payment network. (Daily settlement happen in Bitcoine B2B at the end of the day)
If those services are needed and wanted then they will develop on their own without needing any extra encouragement. Bitcoin should not be intentionally limited in order to promote or make room for those kinds of systems.But a layered service could practically exist on top of Bitcoin like a Credit/Debit Card for your smaller purchases, (Groceries, coffee entertainment, meals etc) and would happen much like your credit card, a trusted service provider could hold your coins securely for you and you could spend on the there payment network. (Daily settlement happen in Bitcoine B2B at the end of the day)
But there are risks involved with taking bitcoin outside its design scope that need to be acknowledged. If bitcoin cannot be all things for all people those facts need to be revealed and accepted. Touting an all bells and whistles solution without appreciating the limitations of the existing technology is dangerous. No one can see the future.
While it would still be a success and a net-benefit to humanity if bitcoin did become a relatively low-volume reserve currency only, it *can* be so much more than that... I think our sights should remain set on high-transaction volume with low-fees. If that proves absolutely technically unfeasible at some point, so be it, but it's such great potential that I think we have to strive for it.
Trying to scale is what pilots refer to as a box canyon. Once you turn up it, you will not be able to turn around.
But it would be trivially easy for Bitcoin to scale massively and allow low fees. You just monetize the information coming off the network. PayPal sized outfits could handle the capacity, and Google-sized ones could handle it easily and make the best use of the info. With some strain and focus, Dwolla-sized entities could run a pretty good size Bitcoin node, and they could just sell the info to Google so subsidize their operations, so that is another business model which could work.
By-n-large the WWW and e-mail already run on this model. Bitcoin can also. It isn't the end of the world or anything, and it would be dandy for getting 'Bitcoin Up'...to get this conversation back on topic. Might be the best thing for distributed crypto-currencies. It think that Bitcoin has the potential to be the trusted reserve currency, but a purpose oriented design would have many advantages might ultimately that might be a better focus of energy anyway.
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin collapsing. 
Gold/silver back under $1400/$22. Bitcoin down to $110ish. Darn, all the good hedges are screwed, I guess I'll just invest in fiat
Gold/silver back under $1400/$22. Bitcoin down to $110ish. Darn, all the good hedges are screwed, I guess I'll just invest in fiat
Do you mean Fiat? Morningstar seems to think it's a good investment
http://quotes.morningstar.com/stock/fiaty/s?pgid=hetopquote&t=FIATY 
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin collapsing.
Gold/silver back under $1400/$22. Bitcoin down to $110ish. Darn, all the good hedges are screwed, I guess I'll just invest in fiat
Gold/silver back under $1400/$22. Bitcoin down to $110ish. Darn, all the good hedges are screwed, I guess I'll just invest in fiat
here's the 20 yr chart:
I bought some yen today on mtgox.
Direct Bitcoin transactions would always be available for big ticket items, a HD TV or a House or Business to Business purchases, even small web purchases.
But a layered service could practically exist on top of Bitcoin like a Credit/Debit Card for your smaller purchases, (Groceries, coffee entertainment, meals etc) and would happen much like your credit card, a trusted service provider could hold your coins securely for you and you could spend on the there payment network. (Daily settlement happen in Bitcoine B2B at the end of the day)
If those services are needed and wanted then they will develop on their own without needing any extra encouragement. Bitcoin should not be intentionally limited in order to promote or make room for those kinds of systems. But a layered service could practically exist on top of Bitcoin like a Credit/Debit Card for your smaller purchases, (Groceries, coffee entertainment, meals etc) and would happen much like your credit card, a trusted service provider could hold your coins securely for you and you could spend on the there payment network. (Daily settlement happen in Bitcoine B2B at the end of the day)
Right now you and I can send money to each other without any without any gatekeeper who is capable of censoring, reversing or blocking our transactions, and our transactions are secured by the full hashing power of the network.
I wasn't saying give it up. They won't be "on top" of bitcoin. Best case if bitcoin scalability development stops today is that Bitcoin will become the electronic "gold", the reserve currency. And a new coin will solve the anonymity, blockchain bloat, long confirmation time, and microtransaction problems while simultaneously allowing "native" trust-backed currencies -- aka "colored" coins without the pain.
And yes, any layered service is going to want/need its 1% off the top...
And yes, any layered service is going to want/need its 1% off the top...
I was just thinking something would develop along these lines.
Direct Bitcoin transactions would always be available for big ticket items, a HD TV or a House or Business to Business purchases, even small web purchases.
But a layered service could practically exist on top of Bitcoin like a Credit/Debit Card for your smaller purchases, (Groceries, coffee entertainment, meals etc) and would happen much like your credit card, a trusted service provider could hold your coins securely for you and you could spend on the there payment network. (Daily settlement happen in Bitcoine B2B at the end of the day)
The advantage would be the effective benefits the Credit Card companies provide today, and Cash transactions (web transactions) would be unaffected. Also said Credit Card companies could provide loans, in real Bitcoin 1:1 banking, as they would provide the professional services banks do today.
The Credit Card Company could also embed ASIC's in all their pay terminals further decentralising the payment network making every retailer part of the Hashing network, Hell they could also create a mesh WIFI network, free to customers / account holders.
But whatever dude. Your shtick is pretty transparent and stupid anyway.
Since you asked so nicely and provided such an insightful response I'll tell you exactly what I'm trying to achieve with my "shtick".I don't want Bitcoin to be a reserve currency because that would be too easy for the New York City/District of Criminals financial mafia to control. I want the other 7 billion people in the world to have the same level of direct, censorship-resistant, pseudonymous access to the blockchain that we early adopters currently enjoy. I want Bitcoin to be usable to average people without needing to go through sidechain-managing gatekeeper so that its adoption rapidly spreads internationally beyond any single government's ability to control. 1.4 billion Chinese aren't going to adopt a currency that only supports 200 million transaction per year, to say nothing about the rest of the world.
And finally I want my Bitcoin savings to appreciate to the point at which I can afford to get the hell out of this bankrupt, fascistic, warmongering house of cards before it's too late.
@ justusranvier, I resonate with a lot of your ideas but I think Peter Todd's limiting the block size to encourage development of a layer of services on top of Bitcoin to address micropayments and day to day transactions , is a good idea. What are your concerns?
They won't be "on top" of bitcoin. Best case if bitcoin scalability development stops today is that Bitcoin will become the electronic "gold", the reserve currency. And a new coin will solve the anonymity, blockchain bloat, long confirmation time, and microtransaction problems while simultaneously allowing "native" trust-backed currencies -- aka "colored" coins without the pain.
And yes, any layered service is going to want/need its 1% off the top...
@ justusranvier, I resonate with a lot of your ideas but I think Peter Todd's limiting the block size to encourage development of a layer of services on top of Bitcoin to address micropayments and day to day transactions , is a good idea. What are your concerns?
Right now you and I can send money to each other without any without any gatekeeper who is capable of censoring, reversing or blocking our transactions, and our transactions are secured by the full hashing power of the network.Off-blockchain services can not have those same properties. They may exist in the future, but if they exist they should compete for users based on their own technical merits, not because their development is subsided by deliberately crippling Bitcoin's ability to function as a currency.
Artificially limiting the transaction rate means shutting out most of the world's population from being able to enjoy the benefits of Bitcoin. If everybody has to use a third party transaction processing service because only a small group of elites are allowed to transact on the blockchain for real they might as well all just use PayPal.
Speaking of PayPal, most people don't know that the original founders wanted their service to be a tool for monetary freedom, just like what Bitcoin was intended to be. They couldn't achieve that goal because they weren't decentralized and thus were forced to compromise their ideals when confronted with legal and financial pressure. PayPal was the Napster of digital currencies. The only way to make this work is via decentralized, trustless protocols. Off blockchain transaction processors are PayPal-like centralized services which will be compromised in the same way. The Bitcoin blockchain is the best solution to the problem that anyone has yet discovered, and encouraging people to diluting their efforts into non-blockchain solutions only weakens it.
But whatever dude. Your shtick is pretty transparent and stupid anyway.
Since you asked so nicely and provided such an insightful response I'll tell you exactly what I'm trying to achieve with my "shtick".I don't want Bitcoin to be a reserve currency because that would be too easy for the New York City/District of Criminals financial mafia to control. I want the other 7 billion people in the world to have the same level of direct, censorship-resistant, pseudonymous access to the blockchain that we early adopters currently enjoy. I want Bitcoin to be usable to average people without needing to go through sidechain-managing gatekeeper so that its adoption rapidly spreads internationally beyond any single government's ability to control. 1.4 billion Chinese aren't going to adopt a currency that only supports 200 million transaction per year, to say nothing about the rest of the world.
And finally I want my Bitcoin savings to appreciate to the point at which I can afford to get the hell out of this bankrupt, fascistic, warmongering house of cards before it's too late.
@ justusranvier, I resonate with a lot of your ideas but I think Peter Todd's limiting the block size to encourage development of a layer of services on top of Bitcoin to address micropayments and day to day transactions , is a good idea. What are your concerns?
Jump to: