I Lol,ed Check out @BankableInsight's Tweet: https://twitter.com/BankableInsight/status/540925405142999041?s=09
Could be Photoshop bit on second thought by comparison noob Bitcoin traders are not superstitious.
This is where fiat is heading.
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 507. (Read 2032286 times)
Hopefully between that and https://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/01/21/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-1-scarcity/ this stupid argument is over.
By the way, part 2 will be out... soonish.Great! I'm waiting for it eagerly.
Hopefully between that and https://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/01/21/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-1-scarcity/ this stupid argument is over.
By the way, part 2 will be out... soonish. 
Federated version of the Sidechains will be released in 1-2 months
http://insidebitcoins.com/news/gregory-maxwell-demo-sidechains-to-be-available-in-a-few-months/29531
can't wait to see some of this in the wild.
Maybe The History Channel will do a show about that someday. http://insidebitcoins.com/news/gregory-maxwell-demo-sidechains-to-be-available-in-a-few-months/29531
Quote
Testing sidechains before the soft-fork
After explaining how this federated, demo version of sidechains would work, Maxwell went on to explain what happens after this version of sidechains has been tested in the wild:
“Beyond [federated sidechains], we have to see where it goes from there. It’ll take some time for the initial system to mature and for people to gain confidence enough to start saying, ‘OK. Well where can we start introducing the soft-forking, additional scrypt opcodes to make it so you can do it without the functionaries — without the federation.”
After explaining how this federated, demo version of sidechains would work, Maxwell went on to explain what happens after this version of sidechains has been tested in the wild:
“Beyond [federated sidechains], we have to see where it goes from there. It’ll take some time for the initial system to mature and for people to gain confidence enough to start saying, ‘OK. Well where can we start introducing the soft-forking, additional scrypt opcodes to make it so you can do it without the functionaries — without the federation.”
can't wait to see some of this in the wild.
Federated version of the Sidechains will be released in 1-2 months
http://insidebitcoins.com/news/gregory-maxwell-demo-sidechains-to-be-available-in-a-few-months/29531
can't wait to see some of this in the wild.
http://insidebitcoins.com/news/gregory-maxwell-demo-sidechains-to-be-available-in-a-few-months/29531
Quote
Testing sidechains before the soft-fork
After explaining how this federated, demo version of sidechains would work, Maxwell went on to explain what happens after this version of sidechains has been tested in the wild:
“Beyond [federated sidechains], we have to see where it goes from there. It’ll take some time for the initial system to mature and for people to gain confidence enough to start saying, ‘OK. Well where can we start introducing the soft-forking, additional scrypt opcodes to make it so you can do it without the functionaries — without the federation.”
After explaining how this federated, demo version of sidechains would work, Maxwell went on to explain what happens after this version of sidechains has been tested in the wild:
“Beyond [federated sidechains], we have to see where it goes from there. It’ll take some time for the initial system to mature and for people to gain confidence enough to start saying, ‘OK. Well where can we start introducing the soft-forking, additional scrypt opcodes to make it so you can do it without the functionaries — without the federation.”
can't wait to see some of this in the wild.
D&T with a treatise on why the blocksize must be raised: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/permanently-keeping-the-1mb-anti-spam-restriction-is-a-great-idea-946236
Hopefully between that and https://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/01/21/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-1-scarcity/ this stupid argument is over.
Hopefully between that and https://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/01/21/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-1-scarcity/ this stupid argument is over.
http://dailyreckoning.com/peter-thiel-explains-backs-u-s-dollar/
Everything is fine! Usa is in best shape ever! Lol if it takes theories to understand our financial system there must be something wrong.. If it were in perfect shape the metrics would be laid out and so would the model., yet we cant even get a sense of when the rates will rise for interest..
Everything is fine! Usa is in best shape ever! Lol if it takes theories to understand our financial system there must be something wrong.. If it were in perfect shape the metrics would be laid out and so would the model., yet we cant even get a sense of when the rates will rise for interest..
James Rickards seems to be afraid of (gold losing against) Bitcoin: http://dailyreckoning.com/islamic-state-bitcoin/
"The future of Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies is uncertain. One problem is that the value of a Bitcoin is not constant in terms of U.S."
(...)
"It seems unlikely that most Bitcoin users are reporting these [capital] gains. Those who do not may be involved in tax evasion."
(...)
"The U.S. has the finest military in the world capable of defeating any threat including new threats arising from the blend of technology and finance."
(...)
"In the end, it may be the case that Bitcoin will fade as a currency, but survive as a technology."
"The future of Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies is uncertain. One problem is that the value of a Bitcoin is not constant in terms of U.S."
(...)
"It seems unlikely that most Bitcoin users are reporting these [capital] gains. Those who do not may be involved in tax evasion."
(...)
"The U.S. has the finest military in the world capable of defeating any threat including new threats arising from the blend of technology and finance."
(...)
"In the end, it may be the case that Bitcoin will fade as a currency, but survive as a technology."
The only difference is now that merchant has 0.25 BTC instead of $50. Maybe the merchant immediately sells for dollars, but in some cases they hold a percentage. This means that Option 2 slowly increases bitcoin ownership. This is velocity.
More to the point, you bought 0.25 BTC, bidding up the price. If the merchant immediately sells the BTC, it's a wash as far as bidding the price of BTC up or down (but the merchant sees greater value in BTC, incentivizing them toward holding in the future). If the merchant doesn't immediately sell, for the duration that they do hold - whether just a day or a month or long term - there are fewer bitcoins available on the market, pushing the price up.
So a purchase made through buy-and-replace is at worst slightly positive for the BTC price, and at best substantially positive.
Simpler way to think about it: The more bitcoins "in the pipeline" of transaction processing, the less available on the market, hence the higher the price. Like if you had a bunch of buckets of water with hoses running between them. The more hoses and the more full they are, the less water will be in the buckets at any given time. Less water available means water is scarcer, dearer, more expensive.
What about people just spending their coins? Insofar as this is understood (consciously or unconsciously), any spending that happens will merely be in lieu of selling, by holders who are looking to unload some in order to rebalance their Bitcoin-to-fiat portfolio. In that case the same applies: at worst slightly positive, at best substantially positive.
But what about the case of an impulse buy where a holder acts temporarily against their own portfolio balancing target and spends their coins even though they are already low on BTC? Well there is no obvious reason to think there wouldn't be an equal number of holders who temporarily act against their portfolio target in the opposite direction. It's a wash.
Overall, then, merchant adoption is at worst slightly positive for the price, just in terms of the economics, not even taking into account the positive publicity effects and the increased value in the eyes of merchants who are now getting a revenue stream via Bitcoin.
All that said, I don't think merchant adoption is the main thing that will drive the price higher for the next few years. The main thing is good old fashioned hoarding.
Conclusion: Don't worry about merchant adoption. If it happens, good, it will just add a little extra boost to the exponential growth. If it doesn't it's nothing to worry about. Investors are the ones that will drive the lion's share of growth for the foreseeable future.
M2 velocity is all that matters the rest is implied. Doesnt matter where it goes
The "buy-and-replace" is not really something everyone can afford.
Sorry brg, but I don't get this.
If someone wants to buy something for $50 on website A, they can:
1) Pay $50 directly, or
2) Pay $50 worth of held BTC, then purchase $50 of BTC at the same moment.
The results are exactly the same in both cases, the person pays $50 and ends up with the exact same amount of BTC. "buy-and-replace" is a wash and perfectly affordable by anyone.
Option 2) implies that an additional portion of that someone's money is available and can be allocated to what can be considered a risky/volatile investment
If I spend 50$ of my BTC today I may not have an additional 50$ in liquidity to allocate to BTC. It's only a wash if we pretend that the $50 remains stable in value
I'm sorry but this makes no sense. Buy-and-replace by definition assumes the person starts with both BTC and dollars.
Starting assumption in this example. Person holds the following and wants to buy shoes:
- 1 BTC (and plans to keep holding 1 BTC)
- $50
Option 1) Pay $50 directly - Here the person keeps the 1 BTC and transfers $50 directly to the merchant. Ends up with 1 BTC, shoes and no dollars.
Option 2) Pay with Bitcoin through buy-and-replace - Here the person transfers 0.25 BTC (assume $200/BTC) directly to the merchant, they also buy 0.25 BTC for $50. Ends up with 1 BTC, shoes and no dollars.
Both cases work out the exact same. There is no change in the amount of BTC they hold or dollars they needed to spend. In both cases the person ends up with:
- 1 BTC (their original amount they planned to hold)
- Shoes
The only difference is now that merchant has 0.25 BTC instead of $50. Maybe the merchant immediately sells for dollars, but in some cases they hold a percentage. This means that Option 2 slowly increases bitcoin ownership. This is velocity.
The "buy-and-replace" is not really something everyone can afford.
Sorry brg, but I don't get this.
If someone wants to buy something for $50 on website A, they can:
1) Pay $50 directly, or
2) Pay $50 worth of held BTC, then purchase $50 of BTC at the same moment.
The results are exactly the same in both cases, the person pays $50 and ends up with the exact same amount of BTC. "buy-and-replace" is a wash and perfectly affordable by anyone.
Option 2) implies that an additional portion of that someone's money is available and can be allocated to what can be considered a risky/volatile investment
If I spend 50$ of my BTC today I may not have an additional 50$ in liquidity to allocate to BTC. It's only a wash if we pretend that the $50 remains stable in value
The "buy-and-replace" is not really something everyone can afford.
Sorry brg, but I don't get this.
If someone wants to buy something for $50 on website A, they can:
1) Pay $50 directly, or
2) Pay $50 worth of held BTC, then purchase $50 of BTC at the same moment.
The results are exactly the same in both cases, the person pays $50 and ends up with the exact same amount of BTC. "buy-and-replace" is a wash and perfectly affordable by anyone.
"Anytime BTC is transfered to recipient not interested in holding our objectives are being diminished"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAnBm0WweDw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAnBm0WweDw
Again, I don't get this.
Take the 1) and 2) example above. In both cases the held BTC by the original purchaser are identical. There is an additional chance that some BTC on the merchant side is held. This means that the action of #2 increases BTC ownership, while the action of #1 does not.
"Anytime BTC is transfered to recipient not interested in holding our objectives are being diminished"
Sounds like nonsense. If the recipient doesn't hold then he transfers to someone who does.
Bitcoin coming to NASCAR. More advertising, more infrastructure in place.
http://motorsportstalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/04/bitpay-coming-to-nascar-on-justin-bostons-kbm-truck-at-daytona/
http://motorsportstalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/04/bitpay-coming-to-nascar-on-justin-bostons-kbm-truck-at-daytona/
Waste of money imo.
It is a segment with small government and anti-FED sentiment, that is also non-technical. That is a good segment to target. If bitpay can use this to get a few hundred more small independent businesses to accept bitcoin that's a win in my book. Don't really care about the ROI to bitpay's investors...
And I care even less about a few hundred small independent businesses dumping BTC for fiat.
Guess I don't see that as a pathway to BTC dumping, I see this type of adoption as increasing the velocity of Bitcoin. Increased velocity in turn increases the economic value of held bitcoins.
A hundred thousand bitcoiners acting as Smaug lording over their BTC in cold storage will never increase it's value. I spend my BTC under a buy-and-replace mode, I'm sure some of that translates into increased holdings by others (both overstock and newegg keep some for example).
Bitpay's customers are merchant businesses, their advertising is designed to get more merchants to offer bitcoin as a payment option. This is great advertising for Bitcoin because each converted merchant becomes a Bitcoin promoter themselves by offering bitcoin as a payment option.
"See how awesome Bitcoin is, we'll help you get rid of them right here!"
The "buy-and-replace" is not really something everyone can afford.
"Anytime BTC is transfered to recipient not interested in holding our objectives are being diminished"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAnBm0WweDw
Updated draft on Benny's BitLicense
http://www.dfs.ny.gov/legal/regulations/revised_vc_regulation.pdf
"May raise safety and soundness or operational concerns", this captures everything.
I heard that when the movie industry first started, one of the main reasons it left NY and the east coast in general to setup camp in an empty desert in CA, was due to regulatory burdens. CA was still the wild west in the very early 1900s.
History repeating itself
http://www.dfs.ny.gov/legal/regulations/revised_vc_regulation.pdf
Quote
Section 200.10 Material change to business
(a) Each Licensee must obtain the superintendent’s prior written approval for any plan or proposal to introduce or offer a new product, service, or activity, or to make a material change to an existing product, service, or activity, involving New York or New York Residents.
(b) A “material change” may occur where:
(1) a change is proposed to an existing product, service, or activity that may cause such product, service, or activity to be materially different from that previously listed on the application for licensing by the superintendent;
(2) the proposed change may raise a legal or regulatory issue about the permissibility of the product, service, or activity; or
(3) the proposed change may raise safety and soundness or operational concerns.
(c) The Licensee shall submit a written plan describing the proposed new product, service, or activity, or the proposed material change, including a detailed description of the business operations, compliance policies, and the impact on the overall business of the Licensee, as well as such other information as requested by the superintendent. If a Licensee has any questions about the materiality of any proposed change, the Licensee may seek clarification from the Department prior to making that change
(a) Each Licensee must obtain the superintendent’s prior written approval for any plan or proposal to introduce or offer a new product, service, or activity, or to make a material change to an existing product, service, or activity, involving New York or New York Residents.
(b) A “material change” may occur where:
(1) a change is proposed to an existing product, service, or activity that may cause such product, service, or activity to be materially different from that previously listed on the application for licensing by the superintendent;
(2) the proposed change may raise a legal or regulatory issue about the permissibility of the product, service, or activity; or
(3) the proposed change may raise safety and soundness or operational concerns.
(c) The Licensee shall submit a written plan describing the proposed new product, service, or activity, or the proposed material change, including a detailed description of the business operations, compliance policies, and the impact on the overall business of the Licensee, as well as such other information as requested by the superintendent. If a Licensee has any questions about the materiality of any proposed change, the Licensee may seek clarification from the Department prior to making that change
"May raise safety and soundness or operational concerns", this captures everything.
I heard that when the movie industry first started, one of the main reasons it left NY and the east coast in general to setup camp in an empty desert in CA, was due to regulatory burdens. CA was still the wild west in the very early 1900s.
History repeating itself
Bitcoin coming to NASCAR. More advertising, more infrastructure in place.
http://motorsportstalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/04/bitpay-coming-to-nascar-on-justin-bostons-kbm-truck-at-daytona/
http://motorsportstalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/04/bitpay-coming-to-nascar-on-justin-bostons-kbm-truck-at-daytona/
Waste of money imo.
It is a segment with small government and anti-FED sentiment, that is also non-technical. That is a good segment to target. If bitpay can use this to get a few hundred more small independent businesses to accept bitcoin that's a win in my book. Don't really care about the ROI to bitpay's investors...
And I care even less about a few hundred small independent businesses dumping BTC for fiat.
Guess I don't see that as a pathway to BTC dumping, I see this type of adoption as increasing the velocity of Bitcoin. Increased velocity in turn increases the economic value of held bitcoins.
A hundred thousand bitcoiners acting as Smaug lording over their BTC in cold storage will never increase it's value. I spend my BTC under a buy-and-replace mode, I'm sure some of that translates into increased holdings by others (both overstock and newegg keep some for example).
Bitpay's customers are merchant businesses, their advertising is designed to get more merchants to offer bitcoin as a payment option. This is great advertising for Bitcoin because each converted merchant becomes a Bitcoin promoter themselves by offering bitcoin as a payment option.
Bitcoin coming to NASCAR. More advertising, more infrastructure in place.
http://motorsportstalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/04/bitpay-coming-to-nascar-on-justin-bostons-kbm-truck-at-daytona/
http://motorsportstalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/04/bitpay-coming-to-nascar-on-justin-bostons-kbm-truck-at-daytona/
Waste of money imo.
It is a segment with small government and anti-FED sentiment, that is also non-technical. That is a good segment to target. If bitpay can use this to get a few hundred more small independent businesses to accept bitcoin that's a win in my book. Don't really care about the ROI to bitpay's investors...
And I care even less about a few hundred small independent businesses dumping BTC for fiat.
Bitcoin coming to NASCAR. More advertising, more infrastructure in place.
http://motorsportstalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/04/bitpay-coming-to-nascar-on-justin-bostons-kbm-truck-at-daytona/
http://motorsportstalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/04/bitpay-coming-to-nascar-on-justin-bostons-kbm-truck-at-daytona/
Waste of money imo.
It is a segment with small government and anti-FED sentiment, that is also non-technical. That is a good segment to target. If bitpay can use this to get a few hundred more small independent businesses to accept bitcoin that's a win in my book. Don't really care about the ROI to bitpay's investors...
Let's not forget NASCAR probably gets some viewers WAY out of their usual demographic. See the Dogecar madness for reference.
Jump to: