Considering how little money is needed to short bitcoin down to whatever price
Which exchanges allow naked shorting? 
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 447. (Read 2032286 times)
what happened to yours and everyone elses FUD about the pools themselves organizing to do it?
Looks like a bitcoin core developer is expressing that same FUD!Heresy!
Quick! Shoot him down!
https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/572517325250801664?lang=en
https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/572519382108139520
https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/572519758769213440
If I wire millions on exchanges (the thing that should happen in order for BTC to go in a sustainable uptrend again... which doesn't look like it's happening by looking at the decreasing bid sum) nobody knows what I want to do with them in advance.
Once I have them on the exchange, I can short all I want. And if I am an hypothetical entity that has the mission to kill confidence in bitcoin, I don't care about losing them all.
It's that simple.
If they didn't destroy Bitcoin is not because they never wanted to, but because they can't.
They can't? 1: Spend the necessary capital to 51% attack the network. Destroy it.
Good luck creating another bitcoin that people will trust after that.
2: Wire $20M-$50M on various bitcoin exchanges and short it down to single digits and beyond in one go totally destroying confidence.
Currently there are around $15M in bids (lol) on all major exchanges combined and plenty of longs that can be completely margin called ($23M+ on bitfinex alone for example), it should be fairly easy.
Not only $20M-$50M is nothing for them if they are inclined in "killing" BTC, they would also make a very good profit on top of it.
They could destroy bitcoin is they wanted to. Thing is, they probably DGAF.
for someone who claims not to be a newbie troll, you sure argue like it.
these issues have been discussed ad nauseum since day 1 2009. i won't bother with the 51% attack since it hasn't happened and probably never will. too much effort for lazy fiat artists who would rather manipulate than actually work. while they could try to short it down using the few exchanges that do allow it, they would be taking huge risk in leaving such large amounts on exchanges presumably unfriendly to their cause and overseas. audits will help prevent this along with the risk of these centralized exchanges being hacked or shut down like Evo walking off with all their funds. if that ever happened, lots of heads would roll at these 3 letter agencies or banks. there's no printing of BTC to bail them out either.
"51% attack never happened so it never will"?
What kind of logic is that? somebody said that "THEY can't do anything to destroy bitcoin". I said that this is false. That's it.
"they would be taking huge risk in leaving such large amounts on exchanges presumably unfriendly to their cause and overseas"
So? They would risk to lose $20M. The cost of attacking the network is a lot higher. So why should the government or anybody else that is inclined in "killing BTC" care about possibly losing that?
Worst case senario: they lose $20M and they kill confidence in bitcoin. Mission accomplished. They pretty much paid (not much) to kill it.
Best case scenario: mission accomplished + a nice profit.
You are making up stories. Considering how little money is needed to short bitcoin down to whatever price, nothing prevents me, evil entity from the gubermint, to wire what I want on exchanges and short it how I please.
PS: yeah, 2009. I'm sure in 2009 you were all talking about the possibility of killing confidence in BTC by using reliable margin trading for BTC which didn't even exist.
Right.
I know you hate anybody who posts bearish opinions. I'm just not drinking your kool-aid.
no, i'm just looking at historical facts.
the more time that goes by w/o a 51% attack, the less the chances of it happening. what happened to yours and everyone elses FUD about the pools themselves organizing to do it? oh, it just so happens we've had a nice evening out of the distribution of those very exchanges as predicted making them, imo, a non issue concerning these attacks. so now you have to move your goalposts and claim the gvt can just do it totally neglecting the fact that someone in the huge chip manufacturing industry would probably rat out the huge chip orders required. there's a large queue for these types of orders from the likes of Apple and Microsoft. do you think they'll just step aside for a few months for their chip orders? what i'm saying is their is too much political risk for gvts to perform this sort of attack. they do have to maintain a modicum of legitimacy and wiping out positions of Microsoft, IBM, Google, Paypal, Overstock, Dell, hedge funds, VC funds, and many other ppl probably won't sit well.
at least back in 2011, i was talking about naked shorts:
theres also the problem with the owners of the exchange being tempted to allow naked shorting by their customers. in other words, they pretend to give you (generic) shares to short which they don't own simply for the fee involved in making that sale. this can create all sorts of problems as Overstock.com and Tazer experienced with thousands of shares sold (shorted) on the mkt way greater than the actual number of shares issued. at this stage of the game where BTC is such a nascent concept, i would avoid this complexity which could cause alot of harm.
for someone who claims not to be a newbie troll, you sure argue like it.
these issues have been discussed ad nauseum since day 1 2009. i won't bother with the 51% attack since it hasn't happened and probably never will. too much effort for lazy fiat artists who would rather manipulate than actually work. while they could try to short it down using the few exchanges that do allow it, they would be taking huge risk in leaving such large amounts on exchanges presumably unfriendly to their cause and overseas. audits will help prevent this along with the risk of these centralized exchanges being hacked or shut down like Evo walking off with all their funds. if that ever happened, lots of heads would roll at these 3 letter agencies or banks. there's no printing of BTC to bail them out either.
The lower you drive the price, the more ammo you give to your 'opponents'. Great strategy he is proposing these issues have been discussed ad nauseum since day 1 2009. i won't bother with the 51% attack since it hasn't happened and probably never will. too much effort for lazy fiat artists who would rather manipulate than actually work. while they could try to short it down using the few exchanges that do allow it, they would be taking huge risk in leaving such large amounts on exchanges presumably unfriendly to their cause and overseas. audits will help prevent this along with the risk of these centralized exchanges being hacked or shut down like Evo walking off with all their funds. if that ever happened, lots of heads would roll at these 3 letter agencies or banks. there's no printing of BTC to bail them out either.
. Well I guess it could work if the world only contained panicking headless chicken-types and no determined investors.If they didn't destroy Bitcoin is not because they never wanted to, but because they can't.
They can't? 1: Spend the necessary capital to 51% attack the network. Destroy it.
Good luck creating another bitcoin that people will trust after that.
2: Wire $20M-$50M on various bitcoin exchanges and short it down to single digits and beyond in one go totally destroying confidence.
Currently there are around $15M in bids (lol) on all major exchanges combined and plenty of longs that can be completely margin called ($23M+ on bitfinex alone for example), it should be fairly easy.
Not only $20M-$50M is nothing for them if they are inclined in "killing" BTC, they would also make a very good profit on top of it.
They could destroy bitcoin is they wanted to. Thing is, they probably DGAF.
for someone who claims not to be a newbie troll, you sure argue like it.
these issues have been discussed ad nauseum since day 1 2009. i won't bother with the 51% attack since it hasn't happened and probably never will. too much effort for lazy fiat artists who would rather manipulate than actually work. while they could try to short it down using the few exchanges that do allow it, they would be taking huge risk in leaving such large amounts on exchanges presumably unfriendly to their cause and overseas. audits will help prevent this along with the risk of these centralized exchanges being hacked or shut down like Evo walking off with all their funds. if that ever happened, lots of heads would roll at these 3 letter agencies or banks. there's no printing of BTC to bail them out either.
"51% attack never happened so it never will"?
What kind of logic is that? somebody said "THEY can't do anything to destroy bitcoin". I said that this is completely false. They can. That's it.
"they would be taking huge risk in leaving such large amounts on exchanges presumably unfriendly to their cause and overseas"
So? They would risk to lose $20M. The cost of attacking the network is a lot higher. So why should the government or anybody else that is inclined in "killing BTC" care about possibly losing that?
Worst case senario: they lose $20M and they kill confidence in bitcoin. Mission accomplished. They pretty much paid (not much) to kill it.
Best case scenario: mission accomplished + a nice profit.
You are making up stories. Considering how little money is needed to short bitcoin down to whatever price, nothing prevents me, evil entity from the gubermint, to wire what I want on exchanges and short it how I please.
PS: yeah, 2009. I'm sure in 2009 you were all talking about the possibility of killing confidence in BTC by using reliable margin trading for BTC which didn't even exist.
Right.
I know you hate anybody who posts bearish opinions. I'm just not drinking your kool-aid.
for someone who claims not to be a newbie troll, you sure argue like it.
these issues have been discussed ad nauseum since day 1 2009. i won't bother with the 51% attack since it hasn't happened and probably never will. too much effort for lazy fiat artists who would rather manipulate than actually work. while they could try to short it down using the few exchanges that do allow it, they would be taking huge risk in leaving such large amounts on exchanges presumably unfriendly to their cause and overseas. audits will help prevent this along with the risk of these centralized exchanges being hacked or shut down like Evo walking off with all their funds. if that ever happened, lots of heads would roll at these 3 letter agencies or banks. there's no printing of BTC to bail them out either.
The lower you drive the price, the more ammo you give to your 'opponents'. Great strategy he is proposing these issues have been discussed ad nauseum since day 1 2009. i won't bother with the 51% attack since it hasn't happened and probably never will. too much effort for lazy fiat artists who would rather manipulate than actually work. while they could try to short it down using the few exchanges that do allow it, they would be taking huge risk in leaving such large amounts on exchanges presumably unfriendly to their cause and overseas. audits will help prevent this along with the risk of these centralized exchanges being hacked or shut down like Evo walking off with all their funds. if that ever happened, lots of heads would roll at these 3 letter agencies or banks. there's no printing of BTC to bail them out either.
. Well I guess it could work if the world only contained panicking headless chicken-types and no determined investors. If they didn't destroy Bitcoin is not because they never wanted to, but because they can't.
They can't? 1: Spend the necessary capital to 51% attack the network. Destroy it.
Good luck creating another bitcoin that people will trust after that.
2: Wire $20M-$50M on various bitcoin exchanges and short it down to single digits and beyond in one go totally destroying confidence.
Currently there are around $15M in bids (lol) on all major exchanges combined and plenty of longs that can be completely margin called ($23M+ on bitfinex alone for example), it should be fairly easy.
Not only $20M-$50M is nothing for them if they are inclined in "killing" BTC, they would also make a very good profit on top of it.
They could destroy bitcoin is they wanted to. Thing is, they probably DGAF.
for someone who claims not to be a newbie troll, you sure argue like it.
these issues have been discussed ad nauseum since day 1 2009. i won't bother with the 51% attack since it hasn't happened and probably never will. too much effort for lazy fiat artists who would rather manipulate than actually work. while they could try to short it down using the few exchanges that do allow it, they would be taking huge risk in leaving such large amounts on exchanges presumably unfriendly to their cause and overseas. audits will help prevent this along with the risk of these centralized exchanges being hacked or shut down like Evo walking off with all their funds. if that ever happened, lots of heads would roll at these 3 letter agencies or banks. there's no printing of BTC to bail them out either.
2: Wire $20M-$50M on various bitcoin exchanges and short it down to single digits and beyond in one go totally destroying confidence.
Currently there are around $15M in bids (lol) on all major exchanges combined and plenty of longs that can be completely margin called ($23M+ on bitfinex alone for example), it should be fairly easy.
Not only $20M-$50M is nothing for them if they are inclined in "killing" BTC, they would also make a very good profit on top of it.
yeah, if ever something like that were to occur, BTC would be finished for sure... Currently there are around $15M in bids (lol) on all major exchanges combined and plenty of longs that can be completely margin called ($23M+ on bitfinex alone for example), it should be fairly easy.
Not only $20M-$50M is nothing for them if they are inclined in "killing" BTC, they would also make a very good profit on top of it.
Inb4 "This Time is DifferentTM "
So you think that crashing from $0.06 to $0.01 in the early days (for just a few moments) when BTC was traded by a handful of people at mtgox with a few k of trading volume and crashing to say single digits now after having reached $1200 and having stayed in triple digit range for more than a year are pretty much the same thing?
Are you for real
Because yeah, if somebody uses $20M to short BTC to single digits in a few weeks/months and keeping it there for a decent amount of time, confidence is not killed. Bitcoin eventually recovers and everything is just fine.
Sure
If it went down that far i'd buy 21 mill 
2: Wire $20M-$50M on various bitcoin exchanges and short it down to single digits and beyond in one go totally destroying confidence.
Currently there are around $15M in bids (lol) on all major exchanges combined and plenty of longs that can be completely margin called ($23M+ on bitfinex alone for example), it should be fairly easy.
Not only $20M-$50M is nothing for them if they are inclined in "killing" BTC, they would also make a very good profit on top of it.
yeah, if ever something like that were to occur, BTC would be finished for sure... Currently there are around $15M in bids (lol) on all major exchanges combined and plenty of longs that can be completely margin called ($23M+ on bitfinex alone for example), it should be fairly easy.
Not only $20M-$50M is nothing for them if they are inclined in "killing" BTC, they would also make a very good profit on top of it.
Inb4 "This Time is DifferentTM "
So you think that crashing from $0.06 to $0.01 in the early days (for just a few moments) when BTC was traded by a handful of people at mtgox with a few k of trading volume and crashing to say single digits now after having reached $1200 and having stayed in triple digit range for more than a year are pretty much the same thing?
Are you for real
Because yeah, if somebody uses $20M to short BTC to single digits in a few weeks/months and keeping it there for a decent amount of time, confidence is not killed. Bitcoin eventually recovers and everything is just fine.
Sure
If they didn't destroy Bitcoin is not because they never wanted to, but because they can't.
They can't? 1: Spend the necessary capital to 51% attack the network. Destroy it.
Good luck creating another bitcoin that people will trust after that.
2: Wire $20M-$50M on various bitcoin exchanges and short it down to single digits and beyond in one go totally destroying confidence.
Currently there are around $15M in bids (lol) on all major exchanges combined and plenty of longs that can be completely margin called ($23M+ on bitfinex alone for example), it should be fairly easy.
Not only $20M-$50M is nothing for them if they are inclined in "killing" BTC, they would also make a very good profit on top of it.
They could destroy bitcoin is they wanted to. Thing is, they probably DGAF.
That won't destroy bitcoin, it will just make its user base smaller in the short term.
From there it will grow again. It has to, it's too useful to just "go away".
Bitcoin (the neutral money concept) can't be destroyed as long as there's a group of people who desire it. I don't think people will stop desiring it, ever.
Attacks from the state (propaganda, threats, DOS) may prevent bitcoin from going fully mainstream, but even if it remains niche, it will likely be a larger niche than it occupies today.
2: Wire $20M-$50M on various bitcoin exchanges and short it down to single digits and beyond in one go totally destroying confidence.
Currently there are around $15M in bids (lol) on all major exchanges combined and plenty of longs that can be completely margin called ($23M+ on bitfinex alone for example), it should be fairly easy.
Not only $20M-$50M is nothing for them if they are inclined in "killing" BTC, they would also make a very good profit on top of it.
yeah, if ever something like that were to occur, BTC would be finished for sure... Currently there are around $15M in bids (lol) on all major exchanges combined and plenty of longs that can be completely margin called ($23M+ on bitfinex alone for example), it should be fairly easy.
Not only $20M-$50M is nothing for them if they are inclined in "killing" BTC, they would also make a very good profit on top of it.
Inb4 "This Time is DifferentTM "
If they didn't destroy Bitcoin is not because they never wanted to, but because they can't.
They can't? 1: Spend the necessary capital to 51% attack the network. Destroy it.
Good luck creating another bitcoin that people will trust after that.
2: Wire $20M-$50M on various bitcoin exchanges and short it down to single digits and beyond in one go totally destroying confidence.
Currently there are around $15M in bids (lol) on all major exchanges combined and plenty of longs that can be completely margin called ($23M+ on bitfinex alone for example), it should be fairly easy.
Not only $20M-$50M is nothing for them if they are inclined in "killing" BTC, they would also make a very good profit on top of it.
They could destroy bitcoin is they wanted to. Thing is, they probably DGAF.
Yesterday it was the same with gold, they didn't outlaw gold per se, instead they said you had to transfer gold to the gov who gave you an equivalent amount of dollars that were the same as gold, that they could now track within the banks.
Today it is the same with cash, they are not outlawing cash, but any amount or transaction above a nominal amount has to be kept in electronic form in bank accounts, enabling full tracking and ownership by the government, this is today. They could easily legislate this for bitcoin.
They were able to introduce paper dollars because these are, in many ways, better than gold coins; then they were able to introduce electronic dollars because these are, in many ways, better than paper dollars. But this works as long as the new system reduces friction in payments. Now the game is over.
Agree with you, that is why I am here and invested. But I'd characterize bitcoin as "having a fighting chance" because the system reduces friction, not that "the game is over". It will be a long battle, and they haven't even started to use the various tools at their disposal.
If they didn't destroy Bitcoin is not because they never wanted to, but because they can't. Look at what they did to centralized monetary systems far smaller than Bitcoin.
My guess is they are silently migrating their own wealth to Bitcoin before full legalization. But you are right: there's no way to know for sure.
sometimes it's hard for ppl to recognize that which sits right before their very faces. step back and look to those far corners of the Earth where Bitcoin has spread.
Yesterday it was the same with gold, they didn't outlaw gold per se, instead they said you had to transfer gold to the gov who gave you an equivalent amount of dollars that were the same as gold, that they could now track within the banks.
Today it is the same with cash, they are not outlawing cash, but any amount or transaction above a nominal amount has to be kept in electronic form in bank accounts, enabling full tracking and ownership by the government, this is today. They could easily legislate this for bitcoin.
They were able to introduce paper dollars because these are, in many ways, better than gold coins; then they were able to introduce electronic dollars because these are, in many ways, better than paper dollars. But this works as long as the new system reduces friction in payments. Now the game is over.
Agree with you, that is why I am here and invested. But I'd characterize bitcoin as "having a fighting chance" because the system reduces friction, not that "the game is over". It will be a long battle, and they haven't even started to use the various tools at their disposal.
If they didn't destroy Bitcoin is not because they never wanted to, but because they can't. Look at what they did to centralized monetary systems far smaller than Bitcoin.
My guess is they are silently migrating their own wealth to Bitcoin before full legalization. But you are right: there's no way to know for sure.
Yesterday it was the same with gold, they didn't outlaw gold per se, instead they said you had to transfer gold to the gov who gave you an equivalent amount of dollars that were the same as gold, that they could now track within the banks.
Today it is the same with cash, they are not outlawing cash, but any amount or transaction above a nominal amount has to be kept in electronic form in bank accounts, enabling full tracking and ownership by the government, this is today. They could easily legislate this for bitcoin.
They were able to introduce paper dollars because these are, in many ways, better than gold coins; then they were able to introduce electronic dollars because these are, in many ways, better than paper dollars. But this works as long as the new system reduces friction in payments. Now the game is over.
Agree with you, that is why I am here and invested. But I'd characterize bitcoin as "having a fighting chance" because the system reduces friction, not that "the game is over". It will be a long battle, and they haven't even started to use the various tools at their disposal.
what a bunch of whiny bitches:
In particular, Mr Browne pointed to virtual currencies such as Bitcoin, which he said had raised concerns about money laundering, since Bitcoin companies are not subject to the same anti-laundering legislation as banks.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/11490145/Banks-vulnerable-to-liquidity-squeeze-as-digital-shift-hastens-capital-flight.html
In particular, Mr Browne pointed to virtual currencies such as Bitcoin, which he said had raised concerns about money laundering, since Bitcoin companies are not subject to the same anti-laundering legislation as banks.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/11490145/Banks-vulnerable-to-liquidity-squeeze-as-digital-shift-hastens-capital-flight.html
full member
Activity: 660
Merit: 101
Colletrix - Bridging the Physical and Virtual Worl
Does anybody know what happened to the Chicago Sun Times accepting BTC micropayments?
I would certainly pay 0.0005 BTC for reading that FT article.
EDIT: Incredibly, this is being discussed today on /r/Bitcoin, with people from the WSJ and CST chiming in.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/302q8s/can_wsj_please_allow_bitcoin_microtransactions_to/
I would certainly pay 0.0005 BTC for reading that FT article.
EDIT: Incredibly, this is being discussed today on /r/Bitcoin, with people from the WSJ and CST chiming in.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/302q8s/can_wsj_please_allow_bitcoin_microtransactions_to/
Jump to: