Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 500. (Read 2032286 times)
For a price chart which spans more than 10 years, the inflation-adjusted version is also useful. (This one a little stale though).
5 Reasons To Buy Gold & Silver In 2015: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-08/guest-post-5-reasons-buy-gold-silver-2015
this chart oddly reminds me Bitcoin's diff+price chart
this chart oddly reminds me Bitcoin's diff+price chart
A test of the $900 to $1050 range may be in the cards...
look at past resistance...should be support...well we will see.
If there exist entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources)
...then they will succeed, and there's no technological solution we can implement that will stop them.There is no substitute for growth as a defence against such attackers.
That's an interesting line of reasoning.
It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Sometimes such attackers keep what is being attacked healthy.
There is a massive wealth transfer opportunity with bitcoin today and that is being recognized by more and more people, greed will protect the project.
Bitcoin has the capability to introduce a wedge between the individuals who make up the ruling institutions and the institutions themselves. Those institutions are only as powerful as their ability to promise the people who work for them a better deal than they could get anywhere else.
The name is intentional, DarkWallet is created to be radical.
Something which draws less attention probably would have been wise....too late now.
Actually quite the opposite.Something which draws less attention probably would have been wise....too late now.
Radical is the winning strategy.
Remember that "government" is just a word - there is no monolithic entity with that name. Instead, there are a large number of individuals who all have their own individual goals and motivations. The extent to which they cooperate to enforce certain policies on the rest of the population is a function of how well their individual goals and motivations align with the goals of the organization itself.
Regulators can't stop Bitcoin any more than the RIAA could stop P2P file sharing, so there's no need for Bitcoin users to self-censor out of a misplaced hope that doing so will protect them.
Every time regulators attempt to stifle Bitcoin and are unsuccessful, Bitcoin will gain more credibility and more users - and very importantly many of those users will be "defectors" from the government side. As governments are finding themselves unable to stop Bitcoin, their organizations will slowly start to fill up with Bitcoin users. Identifying the positive feedback loop in this scenario is left as an exercise for the reader.
Provoking conflict with the regulators is, in fact, the best thing that can happen for Bitcoin in the long term.
If there exist entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources)
...then they will succeed, and there's no technological solution we can implement that will stop them.There is no substitute for growth as a defence against such attackers.
Gold was attacked by outright banning possession for 2 generations until the general population forgot about gold's role as money. Today gold is regulated mostly to jewelry and central bank transfers. Without strong general public demand, it is easy for central bank's to manipulate prices.
Bitcoin is much more difficult to attack by banning possession, so they are left with regulation and compliance (for example tax compliance). The problem (for them) is greed is slowly taking hold with more and more people in positions of authority.
For example the ex-CEO of Credit Suisse recently stated "The only investment that demonstrably keeps its value over a long period is gold, and in future perhaps also bitcoins… Gold and Bitcoins production is limited. Not so with money. Central banks can print money limitlessly and these days they are telling us that openly. It’s therefore no longer recoverable." There is a massive wealth transfer opportunity with bitcoin today and that is being recognized by more and more people, greed will protect the project.
If there exist entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources)
...then they will succeed, and there's no technological solution we can implement that will stop them.There is no substitute for growth as a defence against such attackers.
lol: https://xato.net/passwords/ten-million-passwords/#.VNoKgbCG-RT
torrent: http://www.justhack.co.in/10-million-userpass-combolist.html
Are you on the list? ^^
torrent: http://www.justhack.co.in/10-million-userpass-combolist.html
Are you on the list? ^^
This is why we need our social identity secured by the blockchain:
http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2014/12/22/BitShares-Login/
proof of concept:
1) http://faucet.bitshares.org/users/sign_in?locale=en
my very own:
2) http://www.bitsharesdemo.com/presta/
identity, login, and other certificate authority information might as well be backed by the security of the bitcoin network. ie, use namecoin, which is merge mined with bitcoin.
for ex. https://onename.com/
lol: https://xato.net/passwords/ten-million-passwords/#.VNoKgbCG-RT
torrent: http://www.justhack.co.in/10-million-userpass-combolist.html
Are you on the list? ^^
torrent: http://www.justhack.co.in/10-million-userpass-combolist.html
Are you on the list? ^^
This is why we need our social identity secured by the blockchain:
http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2014/12/22/BitShares-Login/
proof of concept:
1) http://faucet.bitshares.org/users/sign_in?locale=en
my very own:
2) http://www.bitsharesdemo.com/presta/
lol: https://xato.net/passwords/ten-million-passwords/#.VNoKgbCG-RT
torrent: http://www.justhack.co.in/10-million-userpass-combolist.html
Are you on the list? ^^
torrent: http://www.justhack.co.in/10-million-userpass-combolist.html
Are you on the list? ^^
This math assumes the fork starts just after adjustment.
You're right, I forgot about that. So would it be best to schedule the fork for the middle of a period to minimize this impact, if that can be done? I think the Doge merged mining hardfork was scheduled for a specific block count, not time. The HSBC story is fantastic 
Shows once again double standard toward Bitcoins from regulators not even able to police traditional institutions
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/08/hsbc-files-expose-swiss-bank-clients-dodge-taxes-hide-millions
Shows once again double standard toward Bitcoins from regulators not even able to police traditional institutions http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/08/hsbc-files-expose-swiss-bank-clients-dodge-taxes-hide-millions
Here's a link to the ZH article giving a list of some of the clients.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-09/if-your-name-list-prepare-be-audited-or-worse
That's an interesting line of reasoning.
It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?
Kinda the unlikely miracle of Bitcoin's current size, perhaps. This is partly why Wences Casares, for example, likes to assert that it's much less likely for Bitcoin to have gotten from 0 to where it is today, than for it to get to 1B users from where we are now.
Haven't heard that before,...
I think he's said it multiple times, but I first him say it in his Bitcoin 2014 presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NERAN-89j8M
It is also explains the 2011 bubble, which represented almost a 1000x increase in valuation. The reason was bitcoin crossed from being a small project among a few people (i.e. 0) to being a stand alone entity, this was a massive transition and validation of the platform.
Indeed. I think that's a reasonable distinction; the transition from effectively a pet project for a few dozen people, to something that could live on its own...
That's an interesting line of reasoning.
It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Maybe you and Peter Todd need to get in a room:
"Nifty paper proving what we knew already: w/o a blocksize limit there's no PoW security -> death of Bitcoin." http://t.co/VPsgVkdzj9
(https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/564934207487897601?s=03)
Since his tweet misrepresents what the paper says, it seems to me that he's irrationally entrenched in his opinion.
Yep. It is another downside of problems like this remaining unresolved for so long. As the debate continues people do become entrenched when they have have invested so much time and mental energy in their position. They have to admit to themselves that they wasted a lot of effort, if they reverse their view. This is further "cemented" once they go public and stake their reputation on an entrenched position. Peter did this with his video, and Mircea has done it on his blog in front of all his followers.
I have still not seen any reasonable argument why Bitcoin can't be allowed to scale at the rate of the slowest improving computing technology that it uses: (bandwidth, at present).
From the abstract
Quote
We show that any situation with a fixed fee is equivalent to another situation with a limited block size.
And this is why bitcoin only allows free transactions for "priority" transactions (that are small), while everything else requires a fee. This by design ensures that there will be enough fees to support the network even if block sizes are limitless.
It is also why "priority" transactions are determined in BTC units. As the value of the network increases, fewer and fewer transaction qualify for free processing. To send a free transaction requires the equivalent of 1 BTC day (for example 2 BTC for 1/2 day or 0.5 BTC for 2 days). When BTC = $0.01 it was easy to qualify for free transactions and most were, but when BTC = $1000 very few transactions start to qualify. So by design more fees are generated as the value of bitcoin increases.
Satoshi thought this one through, and his design is holding up to the various academic attacks we are seeing.
The good news is that the largest and most dangerous attackers tend to be slow (compared to the pace of software development) to believe that a threat exists, decide on the correct response to neutralize the threat, and effectively execute the response.
So your argument is that Bitcoin can succeed only if its opponents are incompetent or irrational?
Also, what about the attackers who aren't the largest and most dangerous? They're not a threat?
That's an interesting line of reasoning.
It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?
http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/02/09/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/
Quote
The good news is that the largest and most dangerous attackers tend to be slow (compared to the pace of software development) to believe that a threat exists, decide on the correct response to neutralize the threat, and effectively execute the response.
The bad news is that Bitcoin’s inherent speed advantage is diluted by people who oppose growth based on the mistaken belief that smallness is an effective defense.
The bad news is that Bitcoin’s inherent speed advantage is diluted by people who oppose growth based on the mistaken belief that smallness is an effective defense.
That's an interesting line of reasoning.
It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?
Kinda the unlikely miracle of Bitcoin's current size, perhaps. This is partly why Wences Casares, for example, likes to assert that it's much less likely for Bitcoin to have gotten from 0 to where it is today, than for it to get to 1B users from where we are now.
Haven't heard that before, but completely agree with the sentiment. It is also explains the 2011 bubble, which represented almost a 1000x increase in valuation. The reason was bitcoin crossed from being a small project among a few people (i.e. 0) to being a stand alone entity, this was a massive transition and validation of the platform.
That's an interesting line of reasoning.
It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Maybe you and Peter Todd need to get in a room:
"Nifty paper proving what we knew already: w/o a blocksize limit there's no PoW security -> death of Bitcoin." http://t.co/VPsgVkdzj9
(https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/564934207487897601?s=03)
Since his tweet misrepresents what the paper says, it seems to me that he's irrationally entrenched in his opinion.
Yep. It is another downside of problems like this remaining unresolved for so long. As the debate continues people do become entrenched when they have have invested so much time and mental energy in their position. They have to admit to themselves that they wasted a lot of effort, if they reverse their view. This is further "cemented" once they go public and stake their reputation on an entrenched position. Peter did this with his video, and Mircea has done it on his blog in front of all his followers.
I have still not seen any reasonable argument why Bitcoin can't be allowed to scale at the rate of the slowest improving computing technology that it uses: (bandwidth, at present).
That's an interesting line of reasoning.
It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?
Kinda the unlikely miracle of Bitcoin's current size, perhaps.
Bitcoin is already too large for "entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources)" to destroy it?
No, but it's not easy anymore. And we're not that far off a technical attack being feasible only for highly motivated nation-states....which, as JR points out, seems like a bad choice of attack vector for a motivated sovereign, given the legal and regulatory tools available to them.
Yes legal and regulatory strangulation seem more obvious methods both in theory and practice, but that still doesn't answer the question of how it can ever grow to be too large to attack if adversaries want to end it while it's small enough to successful attack (by whatever method), and have the ability to do so.
JR's arguments seem to lead to the logical conclusion that Bitcoin can't succeed.
That's an interesting line of reasoning.
It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?
Kinda the unlikely miracle of Bitcoin's current size, perhaps.
Bitcoin is already too large for "entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources)" to destroy it?
No, but it's not easy anymore. And we're not that far off a technical attack being feasible only for highly motivated nation-states....which, as JR points out, seems like a bad choice of attack vector for a motivated sovereign, given the legal and regulatory tools available to them.
That's an interesting line of reasoning.
It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?
Kinda the unlikely miracle of Bitcoin's current size, perhaps.
Bitcoin is already too large for "entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources)" to destroy it?
Jump to: