what am i?
Old enough to either already have a clue, or be too late to save.Fortunately you picked the former category.
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 728. (Read 2032266 times)
Fortunately you picked the former category.
I think moving all in wouldn't be the optimal play for me.
If there is another bubble, then afterwards you could be considered "all in" because that 50% will be closer to 90%.that's exactly what has happened to alot of Bitcoiners.
For anyone over 40 I have no advice, because they don't matter any more - their contribution to how the future will look has ended or is close to ending.
dude, what am i? chopped liver?
this looks dangerous as hell. it's called a Megaphone. waddaya think Sidhuajag?
For anyone over 40 I have no advice, because they don't matter any more - their contribution to how the future will look has ended or is close to ending.
It used to be "never trust anyone over thirty". You yunguns must be getting soft.
You might be right, but what if you're not? If you put in a moderate amount and shit hits the fan, you'll be well of. If it doesn't you're also well off since you risked a moderate amount. You can 'go all in' now and be VERY well off, but it'll be shit when either bitcoin fails, the system gets an sublime intervention or for w/e reason the projected scenario doesn't play out. Wiping out you're entire savings now will have a large impact later in life (power of compounding). So since i'm advising people, I advise a reasonably safe move. If people can/want to risk more, they should imo (which is what I tell them then). I'm talking here about people with more than 5-10k savings, if you've less than that, I agree with you that the % should be higher.
To clarify, I'm using myself as a base scenario. i'm mid/end 20's and have build up some savings (mid 5 fig's) over the last years with a well paid job, poker and bitcoin (i've been a buyer since feb '13). I have no debt (no mortgage, not buying in this market). I own gold/silver (phys) some stocks (which i've been liquidating the last months) some currency (home/foreign) and a lot of crypto. I'd say the ratio's are 15%, 10%, 25% 50%. This is a portfolio i'm very comfortable with at the moment. To be fair, I do have a healthy (above average) appetite for risk. For people in a similair situation (steady influx of money/time horizon/savings/etc) I feel comfortable advising 5-10% for the reasons stated above. More if they are more like me riskwise.
I think moving all in wouldn't be the optimal play for me.
I'm talking about people who have the ability and opportunity to develop useful skills, who are early in their career.To clarify, I'm using myself as a base scenario. i'm mid/end 20's and have build up some savings (mid 5 fig's) over the last years with a well paid job, poker and bitcoin (i've been a buyer since feb '13). I have no debt (no mortgage, not buying in this market). I own gold/silver (phys) some stocks (which i've been liquidating the last months) some currency (home/foreign) and a lot of crypto. I'd say the ratio's are 15%, 10%, 25% 50%. This is a portfolio i'm very comfortable with at the moment. To be fair, I do have a healthy (above average) appetite for risk. For people in a similair situation (steady influx of money/time horizon/savings/etc) I feel comfortable advising 5-10% for the reasons stated above. More if they are more like me riskwise.
I think moving all in wouldn't be the optimal play for me.
The most important part of what I suggested was the actions wherein they acquire and hone useful skills.
If somebody at age 25 gets unlucky with asset allocation but has marketable skills it's no big deal because they can just earn it back again.
For anyone over 40 I have no advice, because they don't matter any more - their contribution to how the future will look has ended or is close to ending.
I think moving all in wouldn't be the optimal play for me.
If there is another bubble, then afterwards you could be considered "all in" because that 50% will be closer to 90%. Also makes me think of one of cypher's earlier tweets:
"its also the way out for the Millennials to escape the debt hole we Boomers r forcing upon them."
I think this is key. I'm actively advocating such an escape in my social circles (being one). Not many of us (understatement) are thinking/reading up about these issues, let alone take precautions. A 5-10% bet of your networth would set you and others right if the time would ever come. If 'that time' doesn't come, there's still a great chance that your holdings have increased in value. Potential downside is limited to the amount you're willing to put in, upside is unkonwn. Asymmetrical as f***. Just makes so much sense to me.
People in the earliest stages of their lives should not be thinking in terms of "5%-10% of net worth," because they probably don't have any yet."its also the way out for the Millennials to escape the debt hole we Boomers r forcing upon them."
I think this is key. I'm actively advocating such an escape in my social circles (being one). Not many of us (understatement) are thinking/reading up about these issues, let alone take precautions. A 5-10% bet of your networth would set you and others right if the time would ever come. If 'that time' doesn't come, there's still a great chance that your holdings have increased in value. Potential downside is limited to the amount you're willing to put in, upside is unkonwn. Asymmetrical as f***. Just makes so much sense to me.
Millennials should be going into full exit mode: move what savings they out of fiat and into Bitcoin, and start building work experience/ businesses in the Bitcoin economy.
It's not like anything of the present system is going to be left by the time they get to retirement age, so they'd do well to escape from it as rapidly as possible.
Kinda sucks for the Boomers who aren't going to find another generation to hold the bag for them, but being old means they had all their lives to prepare for the end of an unsustainable system.
You might be right, but what if you're not? If you put in a moderate amount and shit hits the fan, you'll be well of. If it doesn't you're also well off since you risked a moderate amount. You can 'go all in' now and be VERY well off, but it'll be shit when either bitcoin fails, the system gets an sublime intervention or for w/e reason the projected scenario doesn't play out. Wiping out you're entire savings now will have a large impact later in life (power of compounding). So since i'm advising people, I advise a reasonably safe move. If people can/want to risk more, they should imo (which is what I tell them then). I'm talking here about people with more than 5-10k savings, if you've less than that, I agree with you that the % should be higher.
To clarify, I'm using myself as a base scenario. i'm mid/end 20's and have build up some savings (mid 5 fig's) over the last years with a well paid job, poker and bitcoin (i've been a buyer since feb '13). I have no debt (no mortgage, not buying in this market). I own gold/silver (phys) some stocks (which i've been liquidating the last months) some currency (home/foreign) and a lot of crypto. I'd say the ratio's are 15%, 10%, 25% 50%. This is a portfolio i'm very comfortable with at the moment. To be fair, I do have a healthy (above average) appetite for risk. For people in a similair situation (steady influx of money/time horizon/savings/etc) I feel comfortable advising 5-10% for the reasons stated above. More if they are more like me riskwise.
I think moving all in wouldn't be the optimal play for me.
http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/content/en/mineweb-gold-news?oid=259165&sn=Detail
This article exposes the dirty little secret of why banks can not afford to let Bitcoin succeed without them.
They either need to kill it or be in on it.
The article is about the effects of gold backwardation. It goes into some detail on the mechanisms.
From the point of view of banks vis a vis Bitcoin: Since there aren't these sorts of derivative plays (like Winklevoss ETP) available to banks currently, they either need to create them in order to play, or find a new way to be guaranteed to make money.
tl;dr?
(1) Basically, there exists a gold arbitrage for the bullion banks.
(2) During periods of high physical gold demand (backwardation) – the arbitrage creates ever more “paper gold"
(3) But the longer the backwardation continues, the more the market gets drained of physical gold and filled up with paper gold.
(4) This can continue for a few years, but eventually the market becomes too unstable and the price soars looking for some physical gold.
(5) But if physical gold never returns to the market, regardless of the price, it means that confidence has been lost in fiat currency - and the dollar collapses.
(6) The bullion banks can delay this outcome, but they cannot stop it.
This happened in the Nixon years, which led to stagflation.
This article exposes the dirty little secret of why banks can not afford to let Bitcoin succeed without them.
They either need to kill it or be in on it.
The article is about the effects of gold backwardation. It goes into some detail on the mechanisms.
From the point of view of banks vis a vis Bitcoin: Since there aren't these sorts of derivative plays (like Winklevoss ETP) available to banks currently, they either need to create them in order to play, or find a new way to be guaranteed to make money.
tl;dr?
(1) Basically, there exists a gold arbitrage for the bullion banks.
(2) During periods of high physical gold demand (backwardation) – the arbitrage creates ever more “paper gold"
(3) But the longer the backwardation continues, the more the market gets drained of physical gold and filled up with paper gold.
(4) This can continue for a few years, but eventually the market becomes too unstable and the price soars looking for some physical gold.
(5) But if physical gold never returns to the market, regardless of the price, it means that confidence has been lost in fiat currency - and the dollar collapses.
(6) The bullion banks can delay this outcome, but they cannot stop it.
This happened in the Nixon years, which led to stagflation.
Also makes me think of one of cypher's earlier tweets:
"its also the way out for the Millennials to escape the debt hole we Boomers r forcing upon them."
I think this is key. I'm actively advocating such an escape in my social circles (being one). Not many of us (understatement) are thinking/reading up about these issues, let alone take precautions. A 5-10% bet of your networth would set you and others right if the time would ever come. If 'that time' doesn't come, there's still a great chance that your holdings have increased in value. Potential downside is limited to the amount you're willing to put in, upside is unkonwn. Asymmetrical as f***. Just makes so much sense to me.
People in the earliest stages of their lives should not be thinking in terms of "5%-10% of net worth," because they probably don't have any yet."its also the way out for the Millennials to escape the debt hole we Boomers r forcing upon them."
I think this is key. I'm actively advocating such an escape in my social circles (being one). Not many of us (understatement) are thinking/reading up about these issues, let alone take precautions. A 5-10% bet of your networth would set you and others right if the time would ever come. If 'that time' doesn't come, there's still a great chance that your holdings have increased in value. Potential downside is limited to the amount you're willing to put in, upside is unkonwn. Asymmetrical as f***. Just makes so much sense to me.
Millennials should be going into full exit mode: move what savings they out of fiat and into Bitcoin, and start building work experience/ businesses in the Bitcoin economy.
It's not like anything of the present system is going to be left by the time they get to retirement age, so they'd do well to escape from it as rapidly as possible.
Kinda sucks for the Boomers who aren't going to find another generation to hold the bag for them, but being old means they had all their lives to prepare for the end of an unsustainable system.
Moon? i lol'ed:
"So I said OK well let's assume it's something like gold—There's a finite amount of it," Pal said in an interview with Grant Williams on Real Vision Television. "There's a finite amount that's been mined. The rest is underground. We kind of know how long it's going to take before all the gold is mined or before all the bitcoins. Put them in the same kind of equation we get a value of bitcoin and that value is a million dollars. Now, you'll never hear an analyst say this—but I don't mind this—I could be wrong by 90%, and it's still worth $100,000."
http://uk.businessinsider.com/raoul-pal-on-bitcoin-2014-11?r=US
"So I said OK well let's assume it's something like gold—There's a finite amount of it," Pal said in an interview with Grant Williams on Real Vision Television. "There's a finite amount that's been mined. The rest is underground. We kind of know how long it's going to take before all the gold is mined or before all the bitcoins. Put them in the same kind of equation we get a value of bitcoin and that value is a million dollars. Now, you'll never hear an analyst say this—but I don't mind this—I could be wrong by 90%, and it's still worth $100,000."
http://uk.businessinsider.com/raoul-pal-on-bitcoin-2014-11?r=US
I suggest you watch the video at the end of the article if you haven't already. Much more interesting than the article.
Only at the end does he drifts into nonsense suggesting gold will be improved to allow for currency use. It seems he hasn't accepted yet that Bitcoin is effectively gold's replacement but he definitely understand its value proposition
Thanks for highlighting the video. Great interview, especially if you believe in both gold and bitcoin.
Indeed it is. He expresses the exact worries a lot of us've been having about the financial system very well.
Also makes me think of one of cypher's earlier tweets:
"its also the way out for the Millennials to escape the debt hole we Boomers r forcing upon them."
I think this is key. I'm actively advocating such an escape in my social circles (being one). Not many of us (understatement) are thinking/reading up about these issues, let alone take precautions. A 5-10% bet of your networth would set you and others right if the time would ever come. If 'that time' doesn't come, there's still a great chance that your holdings have increased in value. Potential downside is limited to the amount you're willing to put in, upside is unkonwn. Asymmetrical as f***. Just makes so much sense to me.
looks like he was on CNBC Fast Money a couple of an hour or so ago. wondered if he repeated his prediction, would be bullish
This is the vid. Not directly bullish for bitcoin (no mention). But his predictions regarding the tipping point would be a huge (if not THE) event for bitcoin.
http://video. c[Suspicious link removed]m/gallery/?video=3000329483
EDIT: why is cnbc a suspicious link lol?
Moon? i lol'ed:
"So I said OK well let's assume it's something like gold—There's a finite amount of it," Pal said in an interview with Grant Williams on Real Vision Television. "There's a finite amount that's been mined. The rest is underground. We kind of know how long it's going to take before all the gold is mined or before all the bitcoins. Put them in the same kind of equation we get a value of bitcoin and that value is a million dollars. Now, you'll never hear an analyst say this—but I don't mind this—I could be wrong by 90%, and it's still worth $100,000."
http://uk.businessinsider.com/raoul-pal-on-bitcoin-2014-11?r=US
"So I said OK well let's assume it's something like gold—There's a finite amount of it," Pal said in an interview with Grant Williams on Real Vision Television. "There's a finite amount that's been mined. The rest is underground. We kind of know how long it's going to take before all the gold is mined or before all the bitcoins. Put them in the same kind of equation we get a value of bitcoin and that value is a million dollars. Now, you'll never hear an analyst say this—but I don't mind this—I could be wrong by 90%, and it's still worth $100,000."
http://uk.businessinsider.com/raoul-pal-on-bitcoin-2014-11?r=US
I suggest you watch the video at the end of the article if you haven't already. Much more interesting than the article.
Only at the end does he drifts into nonsense suggesting gold will be improved to allow for currency use. It seems he hasn't accepted yet that Bitcoin is effectively gold's replacement but he definitely understand its value proposition
Thanks for highlighting the video. Great interview, especially if you believe in both gold and bitcoin.
I will also say that people who not have actually tried transferring big wads of data around the global internet should keep their mouth's shut. That includes transferring said data chunks from outfits like Amazon through very high-end connectivity to outfits like {very large tech company here.} Even very experienced engineers who had not tried it were shocked when theory and practice didn't come anywhere close to meeting. It comes down to basic physics and how TCP/IP works. Yes, there are tricks to make the problems somewhat diminish but there are no silver bullets here...or at least ones which are very applicable to lower end users. Maybe there will be, or they will develop, but absent a market demand it is not likely. Opening 10.000 sockets is not going to be very welcome by one's ISP (even if they do have an OS and router and modem which handles it with grace.)
So that Internet2 stuff didn't work out, except for the IPv6 part?
we are still very near birth on this thing.
As I've said before BTC is priced at approximately a 0.1% chance to succeed as money on the scale of fiat, if not lower. That doesn't meant there is such a low chance (anyone holding BTC is betting on the chance being higher) but that gives perspective of where we are in terms of maturity.
...
These guys haven't quite figures that 10,000 coders aren't remaking the financial system in their spare time only to have it regulated into unusability by plonkers from ABC agency. Any bitcoin regulation is merely one github fork away from irrelevance, they just shouldn't waste everyone's time by vain attempts at unauthorised control.
These guys haven't quite figures that 10,000 coders aren't remaking the financial system in their spare time only to have it regulated into unusability by plonkers from ABC agency. Any bitcoin regulation is merely one github fork away from irrelevance, they just shouldn't waste everyone's time by vain attempts at unauthorised control.
+1. Well said, but I caution against over-confidence. If Bitcoin reaches beyond the beginnings of a threat level the push-back will be forceful. I am sure of that, and also sure that most users (and devs for that matter) do not fully appreciate the forces that can be brought to bear if need be. Bitcoin has the potential to make a big difference but there is no more sure way to lose a war than to become overconfident and not understand one's opponent. Remember that we are still at Satoshi's 7 TPS setting so, notwithstanding the significant off-chain load bearing that is occurring, we are still very near birth on this thing.
Whilst it is true that the regulation of Bitcoin is only what is in the code. There really isn't a safe place on the planet for "Satoshi Nakamoto" to stand. The governments have the guns, the lawmakers, the judges, the jails, and the uncontested right to use all of those any way they please. For as long as we are made of meat and not code, we are vulnerable to those things even if Bitcoin isn't.
...
These guys haven't quite figures that 10,000 coders aren't remaking the financial system in their spare time only to have it regulated into unusability by plonkers from ABC agency. Any bitcoin regulation is merely one github fork away from irrelevance, they just shouldn't waste everyone's time by vain attempts at unauthorised control.
These guys haven't quite figures that 10,000 coders aren't remaking the financial system in their spare time only to have it regulated into unusability by plonkers from ABC agency. Any bitcoin regulation is merely one github fork away from irrelevance, they just shouldn't waste everyone's time by vain attempts at unauthorised control.
+1. Well said, but I caution against over-confidence. If Bitcoin reaches beyond the beginnings of a threat level the push-back will be forceful. I am sure of that, and also sure that most users (and devs for that matter) do not fully appreciate the forces that can be brought to bear if need be. Bitcoin has the potential to make a big difference but there is no more sure way to lose a war than to become overconfident and not understand one's opponent. Remember that we are still at Satoshi's 7 TPS setting so, notwithstanding the significant off-chain load bearing that is occurring, we are still very near birth on this thing.
Moon? i lol'ed:
"So I said OK well let's assume it's something like gold—There's a finite amount of it," Pal said in an interview with Grant Williams on Real Vision Television. "There's a finite amount that's been mined. The rest is underground. We kind of know how long it's going to take before all the gold is mined or before all the bitcoins. Put them in the same kind of equation we get a value of bitcoin and that value is a million dollars. Now, you'll never hear an analyst say this—but I don't mind this—I could be wrong by 90%, and it's still worth $100,000."
http://uk.businessinsider.com/raoul-pal-on-bitcoin-2014-11?r=US
"So I said OK well let's assume it's something like gold—There's a finite amount of it," Pal said in an interview with Grant Williams on Real Vision Television. "There's a finite amount that's been mined. The rest is underground. We kind of know how long it's going to take before all the gold is mined or before all the bitcoins. Put them in the same kind of equation we get a value of bitcoin and that value is a million dollars. Now, you'll never hear an analyst say this—but I don't mind this—I could be wrong by 90%, and it's still worth $100,000."
http://uk.businessinsider.com/raoul-pal-on-bitcoin-2014-11?r=US
I suggest you watch the video at the end of the article if you haven't already. Much more interesting than the article.
Only at the end does he drifts into nonsense suggesting gold will be improved to allow for currency use. It seems he hasn't accepted yet that Bitcoin is effectively gold's replacement but he definitely understand its value proposition
...sounds like he's 'got it'. Good to see some off the smarter mainstream money managers digging down into the essence of it, finally.
He hasn't really said anything that wasn't being said around here in late 2010, early 2011, etc except for maybe the over-confidence in bitcoin's ability to be regulated (it can't) ... but good to see nonetheless.
These guys haven't quite figures that 10,000 coders aren't remaking the financial system in their spare time only to have it regulated into unusability by plonkers from ABC agency. Any bitcoin regulation is merely one github fork away from irrelevance, they just shouldn't waste everyone's time by vain attempts at unauthorised control.
where does he get this?:
But 50% per year growth is really good. According to my rough back-of-the-envelope calculations, my above-average home Internet connection and above-average home computer could easily support 5,000 transactions per second today.
That works out to 400 million transactions per day. Pretty good; every person in the US could make one Bitcoin transaction per day and I’d still be able to keep up.
After 12 years of bandwidth growth that becomes 56 billion transactions per day on my home network connection — enough for every single person in the world to make five or six bitcoin transactions every single day. It is hard to imagine that not being enough; according the the Boston Federal Reserve, the average US consumer makes just over two payments per day.
But 50% per year growth is really good. According to my rough back-of-the-envelope calculations, my above-average home Internet connection and above-average home computer could easily support 5,000 transactions per second today.
That works out to 400 million transactions per day. Pretty good; every person in the US could make one Bitcoin transaction per day and I’d still be able to keep up.
After 12 years of bandwidth growth that becomes 56 billion transactions per day on my home network connection — enough for every single person in the world to make five or six bitcoin transactions every single day. It is hard to imagine that not being enough; according the the Boston Federal Reserve, the average US consumer makes just over two payments per day.
Using 5,000 tps and an average transaction size of 512 bytes (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability#Network), that is 2.44 MB/s, which would require a 19.53 megabit/s connection, which is indeed reasonable. Signature verification can be handled by a 2.2GHz i7 at a rate of 4k tps, so 5k isn't too far out of the water for a high end CPU.
So yes, he's right that his computer can handle the throughput. What he doesn't mention is that this amount of data fills up ~206 GB of hard drive space per day while it is also saturating your bandwidth and CPU throughput.
I may have a ridiculous setup with 6 hard drives and way more storage than I need, but even I can't handle 1TB of information every 5 days without laying out serious cash on a network storage solution for my mining computer to utilize to store the blockchain.
This one is a battle I am fighting as best I can.
I have made several proposals which are objectively better than Gavin's, and he has read them, but is unwavering.
and then there is this:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3305064
At which point I ought to just laugh, but instead I worry.
Unfortunately that doesn't address my question, which is specifically: how do we check if the random number chosen by A is known? Verifying signatures is obviously supported, but how do you go about first requiring a number be known without already knowing it (hash it I'd guess), and then what OP code do you use to verify it?
jgarzik was kind enough to put the recipe in cookbook form here:https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1212356
Jump to: