Gold is gasping... the last telegram was sent Feb 2006. It takes a while for obsolescence to end.
the silverbox update (comparison from the beginning of this thread, March 13th, 2012, gold=1690, nasdaq=3055, Bitcoin=5.4):
Bitcoin is 118.60. Gold is 1367.50. Nasdaq is 3482.74
Bitcoin: 2096.30%
Gold: -19.08%
Nasdaq: 14.00%
Gold Diff: 2614% advantage Bitcoin
Nasdaq Diff: 1827% advantage Bitcoin[/b][/size]
I'm glad I added the Nasdaq numbers though. I think NDQ is probably a good proxy for inflation+economic growth, so the 1827% may be a pretty good indicator of bitcoin's organic growth.
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 1311. (Read 2032272 times)
News flash from Jane Wells:
"Chilton said 'Bitcoins don't exist and I didn't want to regulate them or put the government's stamp of approval on them'."
That's hugely positive news more so than the atm in the cnbs piece.
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?play=1&video=3000169018
"Chilton said 'Bitcoins don't exist and I didn't want to regulate them or put the government's stamp of approval on them'."
That's hugely positive news more so than the atm in the cnbs piece.
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?play=1&video=3000169018
Gold volatile. Bitcoin stable 
You can't see that it's going up?
It's going up stably
Now that is well said.
Gold volatile. Bitcoin stable
You can't see that it's going up?
It's going up stably
Stop the excuses. I read zerohedge every day btw. For years now.
It's really an art reading in between the lines of whatever each anonymous Tyler writes and what the agenda behind each effort of writing an article is at times. I usually watch out for MillionDollarBonus's commentary though, they're the best on that site. Never met a better yet more constructive troll.
GOLD IS NOT DOWN.
It's just paper on gold is down (futures). Physical market is in shortage. This is just a price manipulation by GS and the rests. Read zerohedge.com for more details if you are interested.
It's just paper on gold is down (futures). Physical market is in shortage. This is just a price manipulation by GS and the rests. Read zerohedge.com for more details if you are interested.
It's not?
I can buy gold easily at my local coin dealer for 4% over spot like I always have.
Stop the excuses. I read zerohedge every day btw. For years now.
GOLD IS NOT DOWN.
It's just paper on gold is down (futures). Physical market is in shortage. This is just a price manipulation by GS and the rests. Read zerohedge.com for more details if you are interested.
It's just paper on gold is down (futures). Physical market is in shortage. This is just a price manipulation by GS and the rests. Read zerohedge.com for more details if you are interested.
Gold volatile. Bitcoin stable
You can't see that it's going up?
Gold volatile. Bitcoin stable
Gold down. Bitcoin up.
Where the hell is zerg?
Where the hell is zerg?
shorts are working well. about to break out:
oh Lordy. again.
silverbox?
silverbox?
Gold down. Bitcoin stable.
zerg?
zerg?
Great discussion ...
There is no value without liquidity. i.e. (to trow a bone to the Austrians) If there is Bitcoin that becomes permanently illiquid its value is transferred to all other Bitcoin which may become liquid.
In that sense, yes. How much liquidity is necessary remains an open question, though. I offer that the relative amount of liquidity necessary for Bitcoin to thrive may be less than many other instruments.
But there is a risk inherent to the design of Bitcoin that, being a receipt, only has value in relation to what it is transacted for. And it only has value to you if you control either the receipt or the object being transacted. This means that it becomes money only when it obtains a generalized value, such as when you are holding it in a system of exchange and not via your control of keys to access the blockchain. It really is a critical distinction on what level of the hierarchy of the abstraction of transactions you control it, as each level has a distinct risk profile. The design is that it is a receipt and not money. It only becomes money when a generalized value is assigned to it, instead of it simply proving that specific transactions have occurred.
The next stage in the evolution of Bitcoin would be to maintain control of the actual keys while binding the receipts to an exchange value, therefore making them money. Right now you only have control of receipts, or actual objects transacted for, and it is only for that exchange, and that exchange only that imparts a transitory value to those receipts. Held in an exchange, for instance, there is a nomic value imparted to your Bitcoin because it is potentially liquid in that exchange which is trading at a nomic value. But then, in that case, you only have nomic control of a generalized Bitcoin and not actual receipts. The proof of this is that if you wish to obtain actual control of them the exchange would have to issue new receipts to you via its access to the blockhain.
The next stage in the evolution of Bitcoin would be to maintain control of the actual keys while binding the receipts to an exchange value, therefore making them money. Right now you only have control of receipts, or actual objects transacted for, and it is only for that exchange, and that exchange only that imparts a transitory value to those receipts. Held in an exchange, for instance, there is a nomic value imparted to your Bitcoin because it is potentially liquid in that exchange which is trading at a nomic value. But then, in that case, you only have nomic control of a generalized Bitcoin and not actual receipts. The proof of this is that if you wish to obtain actual control of them the exchange would have to issue new receipts to you via its access to the blockhain.
The bolded section is key, particularly in reference to exchange value. It's essentially the Ripple concept, if I understand you correctly. I don't think it's the only possible next stage, though. It may turn out to be a situation where that system handles the majority of transactions, yet the common platform is Bitcoin.
Assume an environment, something along the lines of Berlin's Kreuzberg, where Bitcoin can be exchanged directly for goods and services that are denominated in BTC. There is no longer any requirement to participate in a traditional banking system: the Bitcoin network becomes the exchange, displacing other units to establish itself as numeraire. As foundation, exchanges would extend Bitcoin, not the other way around.
With sufficient adoption and usage, there is little need for exchanges; they may be mostly a temporal concern during such a transition. It is the same issue that gold proponents push, suggesting that the dollar and euro might be measured in terms of gold grams rather than gold being measured in terms of dollars and euros; just a flip in perception. The exchanges might eventually have to shift gears to become gateways not so much for different currencies, but different asset classes, both financial and real.
That won't help you at a border crossing.
Neither will having been tagged as an individual who had had an interest in Bitcoin. Just sayin'
Safety in numbers The part that's relevant was when Savory mentioned large herds forming as a deterrent against predators. Probably not the best video to illustrate a point, but it was too good to pass up.
It is not a store of value. It is not money. What you transact for it—that is the money.
Bitcoin is anti-money. Not a generalized unit of value, but a reciept, which proves that a specific transaction occurred.
Gold is still the money—the USD is still the money in Bitcoinia. Bitcoin's value is due exclusively to its ability to be liquid, it is an essence of liquidity in a level in the hierarchy of abstraction blow generalized units of value.
Bitcoin is anti-money. Not a generalized unit of value, but a reciept, which proves that a specific transaction occurred.
Gold is still the money—the USD is still the money in Bitcoinia. Bitcoin's value is due exclusively to its ability to be liquid, it is an essence of liquidity in a level in the hierarchy of abstraction blow generalized units of value.
Bitcoin can be exchanged for many things, including other forms of money. Bitcoin's value is what each user's purpose is. One user may make use of the means of exchange purpose while another uses Bitcoin as a store of value. Businesses that have zero transactions done in Bitcoin are using the system tangentially as a means to generate publicity. Does that make Bitcoin a form of social currency?
There is no exclusive either-or, but a relative share based on overall market size and maturity - the greater the liquidity and more widespread its presence, the more the system will be able to provide a store of value. There only has to be sufficient liquidity at the margin, the active percentage of the whole. Beyond that, other factors come into play.
Not all bitcoin transactions are receipts of previous transactions though. You seem to be glossing over the significance of coinbase transactions when bitcoins are created into 'existence' by mining ... what receipt do these transactions represent?
You are talking about conventional receipts. In triple-entry bookkeeping the receipt takes on a special meaning, you have debits, credits, and receipts. The public ledger that is Bitcoin is just such a triple entry ledger. It issues receipts. Yes, a conventional receipt is a record of a transaction, being validated independently and unilaterally. In Bitcoin, the receipts are the transactions; inseparable and validated collectively. A triple-entry system by itself is an incremental improvement - as a distributed system, the advance is amplified and becomes more than a record.
Would you define a skyscraper merely as a form of shelter? At a certain scale, properties that were not possible previously manifest - Bitcoin is not simply a method of transferring wealth. Right now, the dominant purpose is as a means of exchange, but its attributes suggest an eventual status of numeraire.
You are talking about conventional receipts. In triple-entry bookkeeping the receipt takes on a special meaning, you have debits, credits, and receipts. The public ledger that is Bitcoin is just such a triple entry ledger. It issues receipts.
ah, good ol' BUS-A200. never covered this!
I came up with the term TRIPLE ENTRY CROWD ACCOUNTING as a way to abstractly describe Bitcoin in as few words as possible. I wanted to solicit feedback. This term would make sense to those who are familiar with banking but not with technology.
Slightly expanded (EDIT: and revised):
"Bitcoin is a payment network based on triple-entry crowd accounting. A crowd of computers - run by ordinary Bitcoin users - observes the transactions, produces a single common ledger, and keeps everyone honest. The magic that came from Bitcoin's inventor - the thread that holds the whole thing together - is a documented and published process by which the entire crowd can always agree on what transactions it observed, despite differences in timing and perspective, and even despite varying levels of honesty among participants. Bitcoin's design ensures that no matter how big the crowd, its collective efforts always produce exactly one consistent transaction ledger."
Slightly expanded (EDIT: and revised):
"Bitcoin is a payment network based on triple-entry crowd accounting. A crowd of computers - run by ordinary Bitcoin users - observes the transactions, produces a single common ledger, and keeps everyone honest. The magic that came from Bitcoin's inventor - the thread that holds the whole thing together - is a documented and published process by which the entire crowd can always agree on what transactions it observed, despite differences in timing and perspective, and even despite varying levels of honesty among participants. Bitcoin's design ensures that no matter how big the crowd, its collective efforts always produce exactly one consistent transaction ledger."
It is not a store of value. It is not money. What you transact for it—that is the money.
I disagree. Crypto-currencies in general and Bitcoin in particular are the purest form of money that has ever been available to men: They implement the requirements of money the best.
That thinking may be popular, but it is an abstraction.
The thing that actually makes Bitcoin work is triple-entry bookeeping. It is a receipt which proves that specific transactions have occured in the blockchain.
Forgetting this, will lead you to make fatal mistakes concerning your risk management.
What you say is completely true. How does it argue against my statement though?
Money is an abstraction for exchanging one thing for another.
There is a hierarchy of for this abstraction.
Bitcoin exists in a lower level of of that abstraction.
It is not money—Bitcoin is a receipt. It is closer to the objects being exchanged in the abstraction because it is more specific, and money is more general.
Not all bitcoin transactions are receipts of previous transactions though. You seem to be glossing over the significance of coinbase transactions when bitcoins are created into 'existence' by mining ... what receipt do these transactions represent?
The miners traded their equipment's longevity, electricity, and time for those btc. Coinbase records those transactions. Remember, the blockchain only ever stores the bitcoin half of the transaction.
It is not a store of value. It is not money. What you transact for it—that is the money.
I disagree. Crypto-currencies in general and Bitcoin in particular are the purest form of money that has ever been available to men: They implement the requirements of money the best.
That thinking may be popular, but it is an abstraction.
The thing that actually makes Bitcoin work is triple-entry bookeeping. It is a receipt which proves that specific transactions have occured in the blockchain.
Forgetting this, will lead you to make fatal mistakes concerning your risk management.
What you say is completely true. How does it argue against my statement though?
Money is an abstraction for exchanging one thing for another.
There is a hierarchy of for this abstraction.
Bitcoin exists in a lower level of of that abstraction.
It is not money—Bitcoin is a receipt. It is closer to the objects being exchanged in the abstraction because it is more specific, and money is more general.
Not all bitcoin transactions are receipts of previous transactions though. You seem to be glossing over the significance of coinbase transactions when bitcoins are created into 'existence' by mining ... what receipt do these transactions represent?
It is not a store of value. It is not money. What you transact for it—that is the money.
I disagree. Crypto-currencies in general and Bitcoin in particular are the purest form of money that has ever been available to men: They implement the requirements of money the best.
That thinking may be popular, but it is an abstraction.
The thing that actually makes Bitcoin work is triple-entry bookeeping. It is a receipt which proves that specific transactions have occured in the blockchain.
Forgetting this, will lead you to make fatal mistakes concerning your risk management.
What you say is completely true. How does it argue against my statement though?
Jump to: